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