On Friday, 30 December 2011 at 09:13:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Also, if you are tweaking at such a level, every compiler is different enough that your tweaks are likely to be counterproductive on another compiler. Having a portable syntax for such tweaking is not going to help.
Which is exactly why I think an inlining pragma/attribute should provide a guarantee, and not a hint. It's a web of assumptions/guarantees: asm blocks provide their guarantees, but using them introduces new assumptions, that e.g. force-inlining solidifies, etc.
Back to the macros vs.
And if one really wants to force an inline, one can do things like the C memcpy using the preprocessor, or string mixins in D, or even cut&paste.
D has nothing from the above that's elegant and maintainable. Timon's solution comes close, but it uses a DSL to make up for what the language doesn't provide.
If you need to do that in more than a couple places in the code, something else is wrong (that old saw about only a tiny percentage of the code being a bottleneck is true).
What about the context of creating an optimized library, as opposed to optimizing one application?
