Current GDC experience and questions

[Iain Buclaw]

On 8 March 2013 18:06, Johannes Pfau <nospam at example.com> wrote:

> Am Fri, 8 Mar 2013 17:11:41 +0100
> schrieb Johannes Pfau <nospam at example.com>:
>
> > Am Fri, 8 Mar 2013 15:18:53 +0000
> > schrieb Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw at ubuntu.com>:
> >
> >
> > > Yet not all attributes that GCC offers actually make sense to have
> > > in D. We certainly need to have a review of each one and discuss
> > > what is most important to have.  Also defining our own unique
> > > attributes along the way. :o)
> > >
> >
> > To get the discussion started: I think we could adopt these LDC
> > pragmas:
> >
> >  LDC_no_typeinfo
> >  LDC_no_moduleinfo
>
> It seems no_moduleinfo can't be implemented this way as module
> declarations can't be annotated with UDAs.
>
> Can attributes like LDC_no_typeinfo which shouldn't affect the backend
> at all actually be implemented with the current mechanism?
>

I'd say yes on both accounts.

no_moduleinfo  ->  Don't call Module::genmoduleinfo() in ::genobjfile.
no_typeinfo  ->  Maybe don't generate anything in
TypeInfoDeclaration::toSymbol().  But will require investigating on that
part.

Again, both can be instead handled by a compiler switch.


Regards
-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/d.gnu/attachments/20130308/85b98336/attachment.html>