CTFE and DI: The Crossroads of D

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 5/9/12 3:14 PM, Steven Schveighoffer 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

Actually the point here is to still be able to benefit of di automated 
generation while opportunistically marking certain functions as "put the 
body in the .di file".

@inline anyone?


Andrei