Request for Review: DI Generation Improvements

[Alex Rønne Petersen]

On 15-05-2012 01:50, Adam Wilson wrote:
> I am formally requesting review of the two pull requests that make up my
> DI Generation Improvements patch.
>
> The first pull is against the DRuntime and modifies the makefiles such
> some files in the DRT are not generated as DI files but copied from the D
> source files directly into the DI file. This solves a problem where
> certain portions of Phobos the CTFE into the DRT cause a build failure
> when using the new DI generation. The files that are copied instead of
> generated are all of core and core.stdc, EXCEPT core.atomic, core.cpuid,
> core.demangle, and core.thread.
>
> Pull DRuntime/210:
> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/210
>
> The second pull is against DMD itself and consists of the actual changes
> to the current DI generation. The improvements consist of removing all
> function implementations, EXCEPT for those of template and auto-return
> functions, and improved indenting. These changes represent the closest I
> can come to agreement from the community as to the proper contents of a DI
> file. This patch fixes the biggest problems of DI generation and provides
> a baseline for future improvements to DI generation. Currently being
> discussed are modifications to include a limited form of semantic analysis
> of the source code during DI generation to improve the usefulness of the
> output as well as the addition of an attribute to direct DI generation to
> include a function implementation for CTFE or inlining purposes.
>
> Pull DMD/945: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/945
>
> I welcome all comments on these pulls and it is my goal to see them merged
> into DMD 2.060.
>

I would suggest excluding core.[atomic,cpuid,demangle] from DI 
generation, too, and just copy them. I don't see any reason to do DI 
generation for them.

-- 
- Alex