The "no gc" crowd

[dennis luehring]

Am 09.10.2013 09:51, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
> On 10/9/13 12:01 AM, Mehrdad wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 9 October 2013 at 03:39:38 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> On 10/8/13 4:45 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, October 09, 2013 01:04:39 Tourist wrote:
>>>>> I thought about an alternative approach:
>>>>> Instead of using a (yet another) annotation, how about
>>>>> introducing a flag similar to -cov, which would output lines in
>>>>> which the GC is used.
>>>>> This information can be used by an IDE to highlight those lines.
>>>>> Then you could quickly navigate through your performance-critical
>>>>> loop and make sure it's clean of GC.
>>>>
>>>> That sounds like a much less invasive approach no a @nogc attribute.
>>>
>>> Problem is with functions that have no source available.
>>>
>>> Andrei
>>
>>
>> Mangle the @nogc it into the name?
>
> That would work. Then anything that doesn't have @nogc counts as an
> allocation, and the corresponding line will be labeled as such. (I
> suspect that would cause a bunch of false positives in systems that
> don't add @nogc systematically.)
>
>
> Andrei
>

but maybe combined with adam ruppes idea in thread

http://forum.dlang.org/post/l322df$1n8o$1@digitalmars.com

will reduce the false postive amount faster