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