CTFE Overhaul (Was: RFC: Thrift project proposal (draft))

[Robert Jacques]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 16:57:34 -0400, Don <nospam at nospam.com> wrote:
> dsimcha wrote:
>> On 3/26/2011 4:16 PM, Don wrote:
>>> I'm changing CTFE to use in-place modification. This fixes all those
>>> issues. But this is obviously a fairly intense change, and will take
>>> quite a lot of time to iron out all the corner cases. So that's all I'm
>>> planning on doing right now.
>>  This is a _huge_ improvement, but does it address the issue of freeing  
>> memory or is that beyond the scope?
>
> Outside the scope, but it will use an order of magnitude less memory in  
> the first place, in the cases which are causing the biggest problems  
> (such as the one I showed above).

How hard would it be for the compiler to allocate all the memory for a  
CTFE evaluation on a second heap, dup the final output and then trash the  
entire heap? Or is that how CTFE already works?

Also, thanks a bunch for working on this bug.