System programming in D (Was: The God Language)

so so at so.so
Thu Dec 29 12:23:18 PST 2011


On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 22:00:12 +0200, Walter Bright  
<newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote:

> Examining the assembler output, it inlines everything except COPY_SHIFT,  
> COPY_NO_SHIFT, and COPY_REMAINING. The inliner in dmd could definitely  
> be improved, but that is not a problem with the language, but the  
> implementation.
>
> Continuing in that vein, please note that neither C nor C++ require  
> inlining of any sort. The "inline" keyword is merely a hint to the  
> compiler. What inlining takes place is completely implementation  
> defined, not language defined.
>
> The same goes for all those language extensions you mentioned. Those are  
> not part of Standard C. They are vendor extensions. Does that mean that  
> C is not actually a systems language? No.
>
> I wish to note that the D version semantically accomplishes the same  
> thing as the C version without using mixins or CTFE - it's all  
> straightforward code, without the abusive preprocessor tricks.

Yet every big C/C++ compiler has to support it, no?
Lets forget D for a second.
Will you, as a compiler vendor support controlled inline in DMD with an  
extension?
Or let me try another way, will you "let" community to do it?


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list