CTFE and DI: The Crossroads of D

[Adam Wilson]

On Wed, 09 May 2012 13:14:32 -0700, Steven Schveighoffer  
<schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:57:46 -0400, Adam D. Ruppe  
> <destructionator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The real WTF is we use .di files for druntime in the
>> first place. It is performance sensitive and open source.
>>
>> We should be using the actual sources for inlining, ctfe,
>> etc. anyway.
>>
>> Let's not torpedo the .di patch's value for just phobos.
>
> I agree (although not generating .di files does not fix all the problems  
> of inlining and ctfe -- there are many stubbed functions even in the .d  
> files).
>
> In my opinion, .di generation should by default generate fully-stripped  
> code except for templates.  If you want functions to be CTFE-able, don't  
> use auto-generated .di files to import them.
>
> -Steve

That is what my patch does, unfortunately, Phobos won't compile with the  
patch applied because of the CTFE reliance on the DRT source.

-- 
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/