DMD 0.177 release
Jarrett Billingsley
kb3ctd2 at yahoo.com
Tue Dec 12 08:05:31 PST 2006
"Lutger" <lutger.blijdestijn at gmail.com> wrote in message
news:elmjl8$1tdg$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
> About this optimization business, is this an issue? Since Walter stated
> that such copies are optimized away (trivially?), my assumption was that
> the syntax as it is now relies on this optimization being present. Or to
> put it in other words, static opCall would not be supported if there was
> no such optimization possible.
> Perhaps it is similar to how the use of functors with templates in C++
> rely on inlining, STL would be so slow without such optimizations.
>
> My question is if it is reasonable to make this assumption or can you put
> compiler optimization aside?
The impression I get from Walter is that _eeeevery_ compiler has
optimization, so it's a nonissue. :P
Optimization should be an entirely optional pass. Making language features
rely on it seems hackish at best.
More information about the Digitalmars-d-announce
mailing list