On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 03:12:38 +0200, Iain Buclaw <ibuc...@ubuntu.com> wrote:
On 31 December 2011 00:48, so <s...@so.so> wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 20:48:54 +0200, Walter Bright
<newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
On 12/30/2011 7:06 AM, so wrote:
I agree @inline (which will probably be an extension) in D should mean
force-inline.
Ignoring the impossible-to-inline cases (which in time should get
better),
adding @inline is a few minutes of editing.
It will just bypass the cost function and if it is not possible to
inline, pop
error.
Sure, but I think you'll be very disappointed in that it isn't going to
deliver the goods.
dmd_inl -O -inline test.d
dmd_inl -O -inline test_inl.d
time ./test
real 0m4.686s
user 0m3.516s
sys 0m0.007s
time ./test_inl
real 0m1.900s
user 0m1.503s
sys 0m0.007s
time ./test
*SNIP*
void main()
{
for(uint i=0; i<1_000_000_000; ++i)
test();
}
A better compiler would see that the function 'test' has no side
effects, and it's return value is unused, so elimates the call to it
completely as dead code.
It is just a dummy function that dmd rejected to inline, send me a better
one (which won't use any libraries) and i'll use it :)
