template functions, a special case of constant folding?

[Knud Sørensen]

What if the compiler automatic inlines functions with 
constant arguments.

Then the optimiser could do some real work on it !

Just a trough.

Knud

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:34:07 -0700, Hasan Aljudy wrote:

> Given the following expression:
> #x = 10 * 5 + y;
> the compiler will compute 10 * 5 at compile-time and convert the 
> expression into
> #x = 50 + y;
> 
> I think that's called constant-folding, am I right?
> 
> Why can't this be extended such that for the following function:
> # int add( int x, int y ) { return x + y; }
> 
> if it's called with constant arguments:
> # x = add( 10, 3 );
> 
> the compiler shall do the computation at compile time and convert it to:
> # x = 13;
> is there a particular reason for not doing that?
> 
> What I'm trying to say is, why do we need templates to do compile-time 
> computation of square roots? (as shown on 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/templates-revisited.html)
> 
> Why not, instead of calling the templated sqrt
> #    x = sqrt!(2);
> you just call the regular sqrt
> #    x = sqrt(2);
> and the compiler, if smart enough, should do the computation at compile 
> time?
> 
> If it's too hard to make the compiler smart enough, then maybe we can 
> add a keyword to hint to the compiler that if all arguments to this 
> function are constants then it can be "folded"!
> After all, that's essentially what the "template" keyword is doing! 
> (kinda, not really though, I know).
> 
> # fold int add( int x, int y ) { return x + y; }
> vs.
> # template add( int x, int y ) { const add = x + y; }
> 
> The "fold" version of the function can be reused for non-constant 
> arguments. Where as the templated version can't. (although I'm not 
> entirely sure about that).