Should we remove int[$] before 2.067?

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 2 February 2015 at 15:24:15 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> and lambdas, which i'm using in gcc too. and i don't really 
> need that
> "@safe" and "pure" things -- hey, if compiler is able to check 
> that, it's
> able to infer that, so do it and just get out of my way! ah, 
> and "nothrow"
> too. let me force that if i want, but otherwise don't burden my 
> sources.

Yeah, I'm not really into all those constraints. I want power, 
not limitations and tedium. ;-)

> sure, to fully exploit that (and other things) it's better to 
> drop that
> oldish "object files" concept and use something like delphi's 
> .dcu.

I am not familiar with that format, but using a high level 
intermediate representation format is the way to go for whole 
program optimization IMO...

> not necessary. just stop using homegrown codegen for anything 
> except
> compiler prototypes. develop new features and fixes with 
> prototype
> comiler, which is able to produce working code, but doesn't 
> even try to
> do "native" optimisations, and then use gcc as backend for 
> releases.

Well, one should look to other architectures, but getting high 
performance levels takes focus. I am not sure if one can get 
beyond C++ by spreading out on all platforms. Intel intrinsics 
are in the thousands, and the libraries (and high level 
optimizer) probably should use those where they are a good fit...