[Issue 10527] Eliding more postblit constructor calls

Wed Jul 3 04:12:00 PDT 2013

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10527

--- Comment #1 from Tommi <tommitissari at hotmail.com> 2013-07-03 04:12:00 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> [..] the language should guarantee these two things:
> 1) cpy's postblit constructor is omitted when cpy is constructed
> 2) cpy's destructor is omitted when cpy goes out of scope

Let's change this proposal so that the language would guarantee to do those
optimisations only when it can deduce that it can be done from looking at
function signatures. And the compiler can choose whether or not it wants to try
to do more postblit/destructor elisions through static analysis.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------