CTFE and DI: The Crossroads of D

[deadalnix]

Le 09/05/2012 22:40, Adam Wilson a écrit :
> On Wed, 09 May 2012 13:14:32 -0700, Steven Schveighoffer
> <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:57:46 -0400, Adam D. Ruppe
>> <destructionator at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The real WTF is we use .di files for druntime in the
>>> first place. It is performance sensitive and open source.
>>>
>>> We should be using the actual sources for inlining, ctfe,
>>> etc. anyway.
>>>
>>> Let's not torpedo the .di patch's value for just phobos.
>>
>> I agree (although not generating .di files does not fix all the
>> problems of inlining and ctfe -- there are many stubbed functions even
>> in the .d files).
>>
>> In my opinion, .di generation should by default generate
>> fully-stripped code except for templates. If you want functions to be
>> CTFE-able, don't use auto-generated .di files to import them.
>>
>> -Steve
>
> That is what my patch does, unfortunately, Phobos won't compile with the
> patch applied because of the CTFE reliance on the DRT source.
>

It doesn't make much sens to di phobos and druntime IMO.