On Oct 8, 2013, at 3:38 PM, Walter Bright <newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> On 10/8/2013 3:02 PM, Peter Alexander wrote: >> You may argue that profiling won't always catch accidental allocations due to >> test coverage. This is true, but then @nogc is only a partial fix to this >> anyway. It will catch GC allocations, but what about accidental calls to >> malloc, >> mmap, or maybe an accidental IO call due to some logging you forgot to >> remove. >> GC allocations are just one class of performance problems, there are many >> more >> and I hope we don't have to add attributes for them all. > > This, of course, is the other problem with @nogc. Having a forest of > attributes on otherwise ordinary functions is awfully ugly. And we already have a forest of attributes on otherwise ordinary functions.