const again

[guslay]

Kris Wrote:

> "guslay" <guslay at gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:fjao2r$ii4$1 at digitalmars.com...
> > Walter Bright Wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes for that reason, and the other reason is one rarely wants storage
> >> allocated for manifest constants. windows.d has 10,000 declarations in
> >> it, who wants 40K of executable bloat from const declarations?
> >>
> >
> > const int x = 1;
> >
> > Doesn't x get substituted by 1 everywhere in a constant propagation pass?
> > I thought it didn't take storage, at least in optimization mode.
> >
> 
> all those Win32 constants actually adds over 50KB of bloat. Tango would up 
> using enum instead, and pulled some silly linker stunts to eliminate the 
> bloat. I think you can take the address of a const? 
> 
> 

You're right, without whole program optimization it would probably only be optimized within the scope of a module.