Am 07.04.2011, 18:03 Uhr, schrieb Simen kjaeraas <simen.kja...@gmail.com>:
On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 21:42:35 +0200, Trass3r <u...@known.com> wrote:Am 06.04.2011, 20:40 Uhr, schrieb Simen kjaeraas <simen.kja...@gmail.com>:Yup. In theory, any immutable Foo declared at module scope (and likely also those at static class/struct scope) could be elided by the linker if it not used anywhere, but Optlink does not do that.Ok, I guess the hack works by replacing every occurrence of the constant identifier in the AST with the initializer part of "enum foo = initializer;"?So there would be no reason to keep enum manifest constants if this Optlink bug was fixed?Correct on both counts.
I'm still confused about this. Don't we need enum to have things like PI not consume memory? Which directly brings me to the following:http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/enum.html states that enum ident = val; is just shorthand for enum {ident = val}. Yet it suggests these are different things by calling only these special cases "manifest constants" and stating that SUCH declarations are not lvalues. Even though normal enums aren't lvalues either:
enum {a = 5, b}
pragma(msg, &b);
Error: constant 6 is not an lvalue
And also dmd handles them specially by treating enum as a storage class
(STC_manifest) in this case.
