On Tuesday, 3 February 2015 at 09:36:57 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 2/3/2015 1:11 AM, Mike wrote:
All things being equal, will there be any difference between
the resulting
binaries for each of these scenarios?
No.
Another way of putting it: Does pragma(inline, true) simply
allow the user to
compiler parts of their source file with -inline?
Yes.
I'm beginning to think a pragma(hot, true/false) might be a
better approach, as there are more optimizations that can be
done better if the compiler knows which branches are hot or not.
I believe both sides in this debate are actually right, but I'm
siding with Walter: pragma(inline, true) should not generate a
compiler error if a function cannot be inlined.
The expressed need by the other side is right on, and that need
should have be acknowledged. However, I believe that is a need
that Walter did not intend to address with DIP56.
IMO, the important thing to explain in DIP56 is the relationship
pragma(inline) has to the -inline compiler flag, and that it is
not a substitute for future features that may provide strict
enforcement.
It may even be better, and less controversial, to have a
pragma(compiler, "-inline -whatever") that gives the user more
fine control over, not just -inline, but other compiler options
as well...and each compiler flag should have a negative (e.g.
-no-inline) conterpart.
I don't like "hot/cold" as it does not convey the effect.
Mike
