The "no gc" crowd

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 10/9/13 12:58 AM, dennis luehring wrote:
> Am 09.10.2013 09:51, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
>> On 10/9/13 12:01 AM, Mehrdad wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 9 October 2013 at 03:39:38 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>> On 10/8/13 4:45 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, October 09, 2013 01:04:39 Tourist wrote:
>>>>>> I thought about an alternative approach:
>>>>>> Instead of using a (yet another) annotation, how about
>>>>>> introducing a flag similar to -cov, which would output lines in
>>>>>> which the GC is used.
>>>>>> This information can be used by an IDE to highlight those lines.
>>>>>> Then you could quickly navigate through your performance-critical
>>>>>> loop and make sure it's clean of GC.
>>>>>
>>>>> That sounds like a much less invasive approach no a @nogc attribute.
>>>>
>>>> Problem is with functions that have no source available.
>>>>
>>>> Andrei
>>>
>>>
>>> Mangle the @nogc it into the name?
>>
>> That would work. Then anything that doesn't have @nogc counts as an
>> allocation, and the corresponding line will be labeled as such. (I
>> suspect that would cause a bunch of false positives in systems that
>> don't add @nogc systematically.)
>>
>>
>> Andrei
>>
>
> but maybe combined with adam ruppes idea in thread
>
> http://forum.dlang.org/post/l322df$1n8o$1@digitalmars.com
>
> will reduce the false postive amount faster

I'm hesitant about stuff that computes function summaries such as 
__traits(getFunctionsCalled, function) without allowing those summaries 
to make it into the function's signature or attributes. It makes 
separate compilation difficult.


Andrei