Bounty for -minimal compiler flag

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 09:07:35 -0500, Daniel Murphy  
<yebbliesnospam at gmail.com> wrote:

> "1100110"  wrote in message news:ldl6v6$255r$1 at digitalmars.com...
>
>> I dont know enough about TLS to comment really. Thoughts?
>
> It's probably platform dependent, I guess it should work everywhere that  
> C supports TLS.

I'm 90% sure that MacOS does not natively support TLS, and uses the  
core.Thread class to store it.

>> static this/~this is tougher.  If it is possible for it to work, then  
>> it should.  I feel that this is more of a language feature.
>
> These might work with init sections, but maybe not.

No, static ctor/dtor is not a trivial mechanism. There is a runtime graph  
analysis to make sure there are no cycles, and then run them in the proper  
order.

I think this feature has to be disabled.

>> unittests are out as well.
>
> Most likely.

Yes, this also depends on moduleinfo, like static ctor/dtor.

>> I'm unsure how useful classes will be without a GC or the runtime...
>> Thoughts?
>> I'd be fine with then being disabled.
>
> I'll take it you've never seen how virtual functions are implemented in  
> C? Classes are awesome.

This requires vtables and typeinfo. I've seen virtual functions  
implemented in C (back when I wrote Xt widgets). I also think that with  
D's compile-time power, one could probably recreate it using templates.

The issue I have with allowing classes is the implications of classes. D  
classes are infinite-lifetime, meaning requiring GC. What we would end up  
with is classes written for the minimal no-gc version of D, and classes  
that were written to be allocated on the GC heap in full-D. And both would  
be named 'class'

-Steve