All right, all right! Interim decision regarding qualified Object methods

[deadalnix]

On 12/07/2012 13:50, Tobias Pankrath wrote:
>> Another weapon to attack the problem is introducing in the DMD
>> back-end an optimization (already present in LLVM, but I think not
>> used on default), merging of functions with the same body (leaving
>> just a jump as the body of the removed function, to keep their
>> function pointers distinct).
>
> Why not drop that requirement? What is the use case of different
> function pointers for different but equivalent functions? Does anyone
> depend on this?

Nothing prevent the linker to link directly to the new function if the 
body is only a branch instruction. This have a cost only when doing 
indirect call, and the indirect call is greater than a branch instruction.