Re: pragma(inline, true) not very useful in its current state?
Am Sat, 26 Sep 2015 19:58:14 +0200 schrieb Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d: > `allow` is the default state and always safe; for the cases > where it's /undesirable/, there is noinline. > > artur No what I meant was when the compiler sees inline assembly or anything else it deems not safe to inline, you can convice it anyways. It is more like @trusted on otherwise @system functions. I just mentioned it so it is under consideration, as I have seen it in LLVM. -- Marco
Re: pragma(inline, true) not very useful in its current state?
Am Sun, 27 Sep 2015 16:48:21 +0200 schrieb Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d: > On 09/27/15 13:48, Marco Leise via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > Am Sat, 26 Sep 2015 19:58:14 +0200 > > schrieb Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d > > : > > > >> `allow` is the default state and always safe; for the cases > >> where it's /undesirable/, there is noinline. > > > > No what I meant was when the compiler sees inline assembly or > > anything else it deems not safe to inline, you can convice it > > anyways. It is more like @trusted on otherwise @system > > functions. I just mentioned it so it is under consideration, > > as I have seen it in LLVM. > > The problem with this would be that it would soon lead to a > C-like mess -- a lot of function marked with `allow` just-in-case. > Failure to inline is a compiler implementation problem, it > shouldn't affect the language, which already has enough > annotation noise. > What would be the cases for `allow`, that are /not/ caused > by compiler limitations? (dmd's legacy inline asm hack is not > part of the language in practice, so that does not count) I have no idea, ask the LLVM team for more information. At least as I understood it would be a rare need. A stupid example would be alloca(). Functions that contain it are not inlined and that is not a compiler limitation. Now you might manipulate the stack pointer in asm and the compiler could stop inlining although you know it is safe. Something like that maybe. > Also keep in mind that `noinline` will often not come alone, > but be accompanied by other annotations like `noclone`. > `noinline` often means that the functions identity matters, > so you have to disable cross-function constant propagation > etc too. It can all be done by bundling the attributes via > alias, but the defaults must be sane, so that most code > does not need annotations (for example: a templated function > containing a mixin must not require @inlinable @clonable @etc > just because the mixed in code, that is not locally known, > /might/ silently turn off inlining). > > artur In general I don't see inlining attributes much used at all because of the sane defaults we already have and the aggressive inlining performed by modern compilers. For me the option to build a release version and mark a single function "noinline" is interesting to see it as a separate item in a profiler or to set a breakpoint on it in a debugger and see all the assembly as one block. But first we need to agree on names in core.attribute. I find the GCC names pretty good. "force" is stronger than "always". Unless, to support DMD, we want a more fuzzy thing that doesn't really enforce anything unless -inline is active. -- Marco
Re: pragma(inline, true) not very useful in its current state?
Am Sat, 26 Sep 2015 21:11:07 +0200 schrieb Jacob Carlborg: > On 2015-09-26 18:42, Marco Leise wrote: > > > Maybe the compiler devs can decide on more common syntax like > > a generic core.attribute or just use pragma for inlining, but > > extend it so that it offers more options: > > Yeah, we already have core.attribute. Now they just have to agree on the > name :) *nods* So ... agree already guys. Guys?! -- Marco
Re: pragma(inline, true) not very useful in its current state?
On 09/27/15 13:48, Marco Leise via Digitalmars-d wrote: > Am Sat, 26 Sep 2015 19:58:14 +0200 > schrieb Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d >: > >> `allow` is the default state and always safe; for the cases >> where it's /undesirable/, there is noinline. > > No what I meant was when the compiler sees inline assembly or > anything else it deems not safe to inline, you can convice it > anyways. It is more like @trusted on otherwise @system > functions. I just mentioned it so it is under consideration, > as I have seen it in LLVM. The problem with this would be that it would soon lead to a C-like mess -- a lot of function marked with `allow` just-in-case. Failure to inline is a compiler implementation problem, it shouldn't affect the language, which already has enough annotation noise. What would be the cases for `allow`, that are /not/ caused by compiler limitations? (dmd's legacy inline asm hack is not part of the language in practice, so that does not count) Also keep in mind that `noinline` will often not come alone, but be accompanied by other annotations like `noclone`. `noinline` often means that the functions identity matters, so you have to disable cross-function constant propagation etc too. It can all be done by bundling the attributes via alias, but the defaults must be sane, so that most code does not need annotations (for example: a templated function containing a mixin must not require @inlinable @clonable @etc just because the mixed in code, that is not locally known, /might/ silently turn off inlining). artur
Re: pragma(inline, true) not very useful in its current state?
On 26-Sep-2015 07:27, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote: On 25 September 2015 at 01:47, David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-dwrote: Hi all, [...] our resident Mr. Why-Can't-D-Be-More-Like-C++, Manu Evans Bah, I'm not sure what this means. If you mean I advocate for things that are perfect how they are in C/C++, precedented by decades of use and millions of developers, Technically millions could be wrong as easily as a single individual, in fact more likely so due to collective bias. remaining as people expect them to be... then yes. C++ didn't get *everything* wrong, otherwise D wouldn't be so much like C++ to begin with. __forceinline in C++ is exactly what people want here. The behaviour is useful, and well understood; compiler will always inline if possible, and warn if it can't. There's nothing wrong with C++ in this case, and I wish D would just be the same. Agreed. -- Dmitry Olshansky
Re: pragma(inline, true) not very useful in its current state?
On 2015-09-26 06:27, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote: We _really_ need attribute aliasing in some form, especially since LDC/GDC have compiler-specific attributes that DMD doesn't recognise. I'm not sure how much this helps but can't you use a dummy UDA on DMD for the GDC/LDC attributes? -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: pragma(inline, true) not very useful in its current state?
Am Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:21:15 +0200 schrieb Jacob Carlborg: > On 2015-09-26 06:27, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > > We _really_ need attribute aliasing in > > some form, especially since LDC/GDC have compiler-specific attributes > > that DMD doesn't recognise. > > I'm not sure how much this helps but can't you use a dummy UDA on DMD > for the GDC/LDC attributes? pragma(inline, true) void foo() @gcc.attribute.attribute("forceinline") @ldc.attribute.attribute("alwaysinline") @safe pure nothrow @nogc { // Ok, what did I want this to do again ... ? } Maybe the compiler devs can decide on more common syntax like a generic core.attribute or just use pragma for inlining, but extend it so that it offers more options: * no * force * flatten (And maybe an additional 'allow' that convinces the compiler that inlining is safe.) -- Marco
Re: pragma(inline, true) not very useful in its current state?
On 09/26/15 18:42, Marco Leise via Digitalmars-d wrote: > Am Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:21:15 +0200 > schrieb Jacob Carlborg: > >> On 2015-09-26 06:27, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote: >> >>> We _really_ need attribute aliasing in >>> some form, especially since LDC/GDC have compiler-specific attributes >>> that DMD doesn't recognise. >> >> I'm not sure how much this helps but can't you use a dummy UDA on DMD >> for the GDC/LDC attributes? > > pragma(inline, true) void foo() @gcc.attribute.attribute("forceinline") > @ldc.attribute.attribute("alwaysinline") @safe pure nothrow @nogc > { > // Ok, what did I want this to do again ... ? > } It's more like: pragma(inline, true) void foo() @inline @safe pure nothrow @nogc { // Ok, what did I want this to do again ... ? } where `inline` would be aliased to the right LDC/GDC attribute. > Maybe the compiler devs can decide on more common syntax like > a generic core.attribute or just use pragma for inlining, but No, `pragma` can not be conditionally enabled or aliased. It does not work well in D, except in cases it's used to extend the language in a non-implementation-specific way. (C/C++ have the preprocessor, that's why it works there) > extend it so that it offers more options: > > * no > * force > * flatten > (And maybe an additional 'allow' that convinces the compiler > that inlining is safe.) `allow` is the default state and always safe; for the cases where it's /undesirable/, there is noinline. artur
Re: pragma(inline, true) not very useful in its current state?
Am Sat, 26 Sep 2015 18:42:03 +0200 schrieb Marco Leise: > Am Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:21:15 +0200 > schrieb Jacob Carlborg : > > > On 2015-09-26 06:27, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote: > > > > > We _really_ need attribute aliasing in > > > some form, especially since LDC/GDC have compiler-specific > > > attributes that DMD doesn't recognise. > > > > I'm not sure how much this helps but can't you use a dummy UDA on > > DMD for the GDC/LDC attributes? > > pragma(inline, true) void foo() > @gcc.attribute.attribute("forceinline") > @ldc.attribute.attribute("alwaysinline") @safe pure nothrow @nogc > { // Ok, what did I want this to do again ... ? } > module myinline; static if(WhateverConditionIWant || SomeOtherCondition) { struct forceinline {} //no-op } else { version (GNU) { alias forceinline = gcc.attribute.attribute("forceinline"); } else version (LDC) { alias forceinline = ldc.attribute.attribute("alwaysinline"); } else version (DMD) { alias forceinline = pragma... //Damn, DMD! } } @forceinline @safe pure nothrow @nogc foo() { } > Maybe the compiler devs can decide on more common syntax like > a generic core.attribute or just use pragma for inlining, but > extend it so that it offers more options: > > * no > * force > * flatten > (And maybe an additional 'allow' that convinces the compiler > that inlining is safe.) > We proposed implementing a generic core.attribute for some time now but the DMD devs weren't very enthusiastic about this. If you ask me, we should get rid of pragmas wherever possible. UDAs do look better, are composable and just like pragmas do not pollute namespaces. (@mangle("foo") instead of pragma(mangle, "foo")... One thing missing though is UDAs for modules.
Re: pragma(inline, true) not very useful in its current state?
On 2015-09-26 18:42, Marco Leise wrote: Maybe the compiler devs can decide on more common syntax like a generic core.attribute or just use pragma for inlining, but extend it so that it offers more options: Yeah, we already have core.attribute. Now they just have to agree on the name :) -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: pragma(inline, true) not very useful in its current state?
On 25 September 2015 at 01:47, David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-dwrote: > Hi all, > > [...] > our resident Mr. Why-Can't-D-Be-More-Like-C++, Manu Evans Bah, I'm not sure what this means. If you mean I advocate for things that are perfect how they are in C/C++, precedented by decades of use and millions of developers, remaining as people expect them to be... then yes. C++ didn't get *everything* wrong, otherwise D wouldn't be so much like C++ to begin with. __forceinline in C++ is exactly what people want here. The behaviour is useful, and well understood; compiler will always inline if possible, and warn if it can't. There's nothing wrong with C++ in this case, and I wish D would just be the same. I'm happy for DMD to not inline anything in debug if it's technically impossible due to compiler architecture, but it's not useful as an error, that just forces you to remove it from your code if you want it to compile. We don't have any tools in D at all to control whether attributes like inline should or shouldn't be present between different build configurations. We _really_ need attribute aliasing in some form, especially since LDC/GDC have compiler-specific attributes that DMD doesn't recognise.
Re: pragma(inline, true) not very useful in its current state?
On 26 Sep 2015 6:27 am, "Manu via Digitalmars-d" < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > > On 25 September 2015 at 01:47, David Nadlinger via Digitalmars-d >wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > [...] > > our resident Mr. Why-Can't-D-Be-More-Like-C++, Manu Evans > > Bah, I'm not sure what this means. If you mean I advocate for things > that are perfect how they are in C/C++, precedented by decades of use > and millions of developers, remaining as people expect them to be... > then yes. > C++ didn't get *everything* wrong, otherwise D wouldn't be so much > like C++ to begin with. __forceinline in C++ is exactly what people > want here. The behaviour is useful, and well understood; compiler will > always inline if possible, and warn if it can't. There's nothing wrong > with C++ in this case, and I wish D would just be the same. > > I'm happy for DMD to not inline anything in debug if it's technically > impossible due to compiler architecture, but it's not useful as an > error, that just forces you to remove it from your code if you want it > to compile. Not sure of oddness of dmd, but there should be only a few reasons why a function is uninlinable, all of them being low level things such as inline assembly, calls to alloca. Assuming that the function body is available at compile-time too. ;-)
Re: pragma(inline, true) not very useful in its current state?
On 25 September 2015 at 04:10, John Colvin via Digitalmars-dwrote: > On Thursday, 24 September 2015 at 15:47:45 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I'm not even referring to the multitude of restrictions in the DMD >> frontend inliner here. When looking into the remaining 2.068 test failures >> for LDC, I was surprised to find out that DMD only honors pragma(inline, >> true) when -inline is actually passed on the command line. >> >> This seems to be completely against what many people I spoke to >> (including, of course, our resident Mr. Why-Can't-D-Be-More-Like-C++, Manu >> Evans) cite as one of the primary use cases for the feature, which is to >> force inlining of certain functions even in debug builds. >> >> What were the reasons behind this decision? >> >> — David > > > Can't ldc and gdc just be sane and let dmd carry on being (ahem) odd. This. Please.
Re: pragma(inline, true) not very useful in its current state?
On 24 Sep 2015 9:46 pm, "Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d" < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > > On 9/24/2015 8:47 AM, David Nadlinger wrote: >> >> What were the reasons behind this decision? > > > The trouble is the compiler does inlining as a top down traversal, whereas forcing inline with no -inline would be a bottom up thing. The compiler could always do the top down traversal, but it would make compilations slower, whether any force inlines exist or not. Isn't this just a problem with dmd's inliner/inlining strategy? (Mixed in with its need for speed)
Re: pragma(inline, true) not very useful in its current state?
On 9/24/2015 8:47 AM, David Nadlinger wrote: What were the reasons behind this decision? The trouble is the compiler does inlining as a top down traversal, whereas forcing inline with no -inline would be a bottom up thing. The compiler could always do the top down traversal, but it would make compilations slower, whether any force inlines exist or not.
Re: pragma(inline, true) not very useful in its current state?
On Thursday, 24 September 2015 at 15:47:45 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote: which is to force inlining of certain functions even in debug builds. I don't understand what the problem is. Just pass -inline in your debug build.
Re: pragma(inline, true) not very useful in its current state?
On Thursday, 24 September 2015 at 15:47:45 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote: Hi all, I'm not even referring to the multitude of restrictions in the DMD frontend inliner here. When looking into the remaining 2.068 test failures for LDC, I was surprised to find out that DMD only honors pragma(inline, true) when -inline is actually passed on the command line. This seems to be completely against what many people I spoke to (including, of course, our resident Mr. Why-Can't-D-Be-More-Like-C++, Manu Evans) cite as one of the primary use cases for the feature, which is to force inlining of certain functions even in debug builds. What were the reasons behind this decision? — David Can't ldc and gdc just be sane and let dmd carry on being (ahem) odd.