Inlining problems again

[Johannes Pfau]

Am Sat, 5 Apr 2014 15:31:30 +0100
schrieb Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw at gdcproject.org>:

> On 5 Apr 2014 13:45, "Johannes Pfau" <nospam at example.com> wrote:
> >
> > Root cause is that const(char)[] is a distinct type compared to
> > char[] so I think we need to make const(char)[] a variant of char[].
> >
> > We could use build_variant_type_copy and then modify the copy
> > to use the correct basetype. Here's a proof of concept, could you
> > finish this Iain?
> >
> > (We should probably check all types which have a 'next' type if a
> > similar change makes sense for these)
> >
> 
> I've had another thought for a while now that involves not
> constifying 'in' parameters, but at the same time not loosing its
> guarantee.
> 

Related: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-01/msg01656.html