DI Generation Needs your Help!
Adam Wilson
flyboynw at gmail.com
Mon Dec 19 12:23:29 PST 2011
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 06:27:20 -0800, Martin Nowak <dawg at dawgfoto.de> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 14:22:10 +0100, Rainer Schuetze <r.sagitario at gmx.de>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 19.12.2011 09:11, Adam Wilson wrote:
>>> Currently, I feel that private imports should be stripped from the DI
>>> file as they are intended to be internal to the module. However, I want
>>> to put it to the community to decide, and I would especially appreciate
>>> Mr. Bright's opinion on private imports in DI files.
>>
>> I'd very much like the dependencies to be shrinked in the di file, but
>> I think you can only remove private imports if you can guarantee that
>> no symbols are referenced by the generated di file (e.g. function
>> signatures, variable types, templates).
>>
>> IIRC removing imports might also have an influence on generated static
>> ctor execution order, because there are some optimizations that remove
>> dependencies if no imports with static ctors are found in a referenced
>> module.
>>
> No it should not, an import will not actually create the module info that
> contains the import dependencies. So the initialization order will still
> rely
> solely on the compiled module.
> OTOH not declaring private static ctors can lead to unreferenced module
> infos
> that would otherwise end up in the final executable.
>
>> Otherwise, having a version of the di file without any implementation
>> sounds like a good idea.
At this point it sounds like I need to keep all private members and
imports. No problem, that's easy enough.
--
Adam Wilson
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list