On Thu, 10 May 2012 10:57:37 -0700, Christopher Bergqvist
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 17:37:59 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2012 09:56:06 -0700, Steven Schveighoffer
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2012 12:04:44 -0400, deadalnix <[email protected]>
wrote:
Le 10/05/2012 17:54, Steven Schveighoffer a écrit :
On Thu, 10 May 2012 10:47:59 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/10/12 6:17 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2012 23:00:07 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
Actually the point here is to still be able to benefit of di
automated
generation while opportunistically marking certain functions as
"put
the body in the .di file".
If you aren't going to strip the files, I don't see the point in
it.
Inlining.
No, I mean if dmd -H isn't going to strip the files, what is the
point
of dmd -H? I can already copy the .d to .di and have inlining/ctfe,
or
simply use the .d directly.
At this point, in order to get CTFE to work, you have to keep just
about
everything, including private imports. If we want to ensure CTFE
works,
dmd -H becomes a glorified cp. If we have some half-assed guess at
what
could be CTFE'd (which is growing by the day), then it's likely to
not
fit with the goals of the developer running dmd -H.
-Steve
If you can CTFE, you can know what is CTFEable. If it is currently
half assed, then work on it and provide a better tool.
There is already a better tool -- cp. I ask again, what is the
benefit of .di generation if it is mostly a glorified (faulty?) copy
operation?
As Adam points out in his original post, ensuring CTFE availability
may not be (and is likely not) why you are creating a .di file.
Plus, what isn't CTFEable today may be CTFEable tomorrow.
inlining is one thing, because that's an optimization that has a valid
fallback. CTFE does not.
-Steve
Exactly this. I am currently in the process of changing the DRuntime
makefiles such that some of the files are not processed as DI's. This
allows Phobos CTFE dependencies on the DRT to remain valid while still
allowing DI's to be generated for parts where they matter, with the
goal of making both a shared and static library build of the DRT. The
tool I am using to accomplish this feat? cp. It works, it delivers
exactly what we need and it's *is not* a broken operation like the
current DI generation.
Like Steve said, most people generating DI files are not really worried
about CTFE working, in fact they almost undoubtedly *know* that they
are breaking CTFE, yet they choose to do it anyways. They have their
reasons, and frankly, it doesn't concern us as compiler writers if
those reasons don't line up with our personal moral world-view. Our job
is to provide a tool that DOES WHAT PEOPLE EXPECT. Otherwise they will
move on to one that does. If people expected DI generation to be
glorified (and not broken) copy operation, they would (and do) use cp.
How about:
dmd -H mySource.d --keepImplementation MyClass.fooMethod
?
It should be good enough for makefiles as in the case of core.time/dur,
but get's a bit hairy with overloads (append "[0]" to select specific
ones?). Maybe it requires semantic information though.
It does require some semantic information. And the solution I've seen seen
most talked about here is some kind of attribute similar to @pure that
tells the compiler to include the implementation in the DI file. IMO, this
is a fine solution, but the compiler cannot be involved the decision to
keep an implementation in or out based on anything other than programmer
directives because the compiler just don't know what's being depended on.
That's how we ended up where we are today, DI files are the source with
unittests and comments removed.
--
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/
