D - Unsafe and doomed

[Iain Buclaw]

On 7 January 2014 06:03, Walter Bright <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote:
> On 1/6/2014 8:55 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, 7 January 2014 at 04:37:12 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1/6/2014 7:20 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, 7 January 2014 at 03:18:01 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Or you could amend the documentation to say that null checks will not
>>>>> be
>>>>> removed even if they occur after a dereference.
>>>>
>>>> Which won't be true with LDC and GDC.
>>>
>>>
>>> You're assuming that LDC and GDC are stuck with C semantics.
>>
>>
>> Unless we plan to rewrite our own optimizer, they are to some extent.
>
>
> I don't buy that. The back ends are built to compile multiple languages,
> hence they'll have multiple sets of requirements to contend with.

Half and half.  In GCC, though the default is to follow C semantics,
the front-end language is allowed to overrule the optimiser with its
own semantics at certain stages of the compilation.