On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 11:58:01PM +1000, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> "H. S. Teoh" wrote in message
> news:mailman.1518.1333937643.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
> >
> > Why is it so important to have unique addresses for functions?
> >
>
> Just because I can't think of a use case doesn't mean n
"H. S. Teoh" wrote in message
news:mailman.1518.1333937643.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
>
> Why is it so important to have unique addresses for functions?
>
Just because I can't think of a use case doesn't mean nobody is relying on
it!
But I guess there really isn't one.
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 08:21:08AM +0200, Somedude wrote:
> Le 08/04/2012 16:18, H. S. Teoh a écrit :
> > On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 03:01:56PM +0400, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> >> I think it's been ages since I meant to ask why nobody (as in
> >> compiler vendors) does what I think is rather simple op
On 04/09/12 08:21, Somedude wrote:
> Le 08/04/2012 16:18, H. S. Teoh a écrit :
>> On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 03:01:56PM +0400, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
>>> I think it's been ages since I meant to ask why nobody (as in
>>> compiler vendors) does what I think is rather simple optimization.
>>>
>>> In the
On 09.04.2012 5:11, Daniel Murphy wrote:
"Dmitry Olshansky" wrote in message
news:jlsmka$22ce$1...@digitalmars.com...
The refinement is merging prefixes and suffixes of course.
And for that one needs to calculate hashes for all of prefixes and all of
suffixes. I will define _all_ later on.
Le 08/04/2012 16:18, H. S. Teoh a écrit :
> On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 03:01:56PM +0400, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
>> I think it's been ages since I meant to ask why nobody (as in
>> compiler vendors) does what I think is rather simple optimization.
>>
>> In the short term the plan is to introduce a "li
Am Sun, 8 Apr 2012 19:14:22 -0700
schrieb "H. S. Teoh" :
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 10:59:26AM +1000, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> > "Artur Skawina" wrote in message
> > news:mailman.1480.1333900846.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
> > >
> > > Note that my point is just that the compiler needs to em
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 10:59:26AM +1000, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> "Artur Skawina" wrote in message
> news:mailman.1480.1333900846.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
> >
> > Note that my point is just that the compiler needs to emit a dummy
> > so that the addresses remain unique, eg
> >
> > mod
"Dmitry Olshansky" wrote in message
news:jlsmka$22ce$1...@digitalmars.com...
>
> The refinement is merging prefixes and suffixes of course.
> And for that one needs to calculate hashes for all of prefixes and all of
> suffixes. I will define _all_ later on.
>
I think you'll find that this is be
"Artur Skawina" wrote in message
news:mailman.1480.1333900846.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
>
> Note that my point is just that the compiler needs to emit a dummy
> so that the addresses remain unique, eg
>
> module.f!uint:
> jmp module.f!int
>
Or use a nop slide before the start o
On 04/08/12 18:14, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 4/8/12 10:59 AM, Artur Skawina wrote:
>> On 04/08/12 17:20, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
>>> On 08.04.2012 18:21, Artur Skawina wrote:
On 04/08/12 13:01, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> 3. After any function was generated compiler checks an entry in
On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 10:56:43PM +0400, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> On 08.04.2012 22:51, Walter Bright wrote:
[...]
> >The main difficulty is not being able to modify the linker. So you're
> >pretty much limited to what the compiler is able to do before
> >linking. D does allow the compiler to deal
On 08.04.2012 22:49, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
The refinement is merging prefixes and suffixes of course.
And for that one needs to calculate hashes for all of prefixes and all
of suffixes. I will define _all_ later on.
First observation is that if you calculated partial checksums for
prefixes yo
On 08.04.2012 22:51, Walter Bright wrote:
On 4/8/2012 4:01 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
I think it's been ages since I meant to ask why nobody (as in compiler
vendors)
does what I think is rather simple optimization.
I worked out how to do it a while ago, but there's been no time to
implement i
On 4/8/2012 4:01 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
I think it's been ages since I meant to ask why nobody (as in compiler vendors)
does what I think is rather simple optimization.
I worked out how to do it a while ago, but there's been no time to implement it.
(You can't do a memcmp because of all t
On 4/8/12 1:49 PM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
P.S. Damn, I could have done a nice paper on that... too late :)
You may always do.
Andrei
On 08.04.2012 21:24, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Yeah, that's what I was thinking of. This would be a very big gain for
the new AA implementation, for example. I wouldn't have to worry so much
about template bloat if most of the instantiations are going to get
merged anyway. :-)
Right the advantage is
Am Sun, 08 Apr 2012 20:58:15 +0400
schrieb Dmitry Olshansky :
> On 08.04.2012 16:37, Marco Leise wrote:
> [snip]
> > Template bloat could be especially important to 'fix' on embedded systems.
>
> I think I this idea largely formed years ago when I was working with c++
> on 8bit micros. You won't
On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 08:45:19PM +0400, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> On 08.04.2012 18:18, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> [snip]
> >We'd have to make sure the checksum doesn't end up in the final
> >executable though, otherwise the bloat may negate any gains we've
> >made.
>
> Easy the symbol size is in object
On 08.04.2012 16:37, Marco Leise wrote:
[snip]
Template bloat could be especially important to 'fix' on embedded systems.
I think I this idea largely formed years ago when I was working with c++
on 8bit micros. You won't believe the amount of code size one can save
by using one separate gener
On 08.04.2012 18:18, H. S. Teoh wrote:
[snip]
1. Every time a function is generated (or pretty much any symbol)
not only a size calculated but also a checksum* of it's data.
(If we go for link-time optimization we should find a place to stick
it to in the object file)
We'd have to make sure th
On 08.04.2012 19:59, Artur Skawina wrote:
On 04/08/12 17:20, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 08.04.2012 18:21, Artur Skawina wrote:
On 04/08/12 13:01, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
3. After any function was generated compiler checks an entry in the duplicate
table that matches size, followed by matching
On 4/8/12 10:59 AM, Artur Skawina wrote:
On 04/08/12 17:20, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 08.04.2012 18:21, Artur Skawina wrote:
On 04/08/12 13:01, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
3. After any function was generated compiler checks an entry in the duplicate
table that matches size, followed by matching
Am Sun, 08 Apr 2012 16:21:14 +0200
schrieb Artur Skawina :
> On 04/08/12 13:01, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> > 3. After any function was generated compiler checks an entry in the
> > duplicate table that matches size, followed by matching checksum and only
> > then (if required) doing a straight me
Am Sun, 8 Apr 2012 07:18:26 -0700
schrieb "H. S. Teoh" :
> We'd have to make sure the checksum doesn't end up in the final
> executable though, otherwise the bloat may negate any gains we've made.
Executables (and object files) are made up mostly of sections, some of which
are 'special cased' to
On 04/08/12 17:20, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> On 08.04.2012 18:21, Artur Skawina wrote:
>> On 04/08/12 13:01, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
>>> 3. After any function was generated compiler checks an entry in the
>>> duplicate table that matches size, followed by matching checksum and only
>>> then (if r
On 08.04.2012 18:21, Artur Skawina wrote:
On 04/08/12 13:01, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
3. After any function was generated compiler checks an entry in the duplicate
table that matches size, followed by matching checksum and only then (if
required) doing a straight memcmp. If it happens that ther
On 04/08/12 13:01, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> 3. After any function was generated compiler checks an entry in the duplicate
> table that matches size, followed by matching checksum and only then (if
> required) doing a straight memcmp. If it happens that there is a match
> compiler just throws ge
On Sun, Apr 08, 2012 at 03:01:56PM +0400, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> I think it's been ages since I meant to ask why nobody (as in
> compiler vendors) does what I think is rather simple optimization.
>
> In the short term the plan is to introduce a "link-time" flavored
> optimization at code genera
Am Sun, 08 Apr 2012 15:01:56 +0400
schrieb Dmitry Olshansky :
> I think it's been ages since I meant to ask why nobody (as in compiler
> vendors) does what I think is rather simple optimization.
>
> In the short term the plan is to introduce a "link-time" flavored
> optimization at code generat
I think it's been ages since I meant to ask why nobody (as in compiler
vendors) does what I think is rather simple optimization.
In the short term the plan is to introduce a "link-time" flavored
optimization at code generation or (better) link step.
For simplicity let's assume compiler does a
"Brad Anderson" wrote in message
news:mailman.228.1328074398.25230.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
>
>
> Walter toned it down somewhat and for that I'm grateful but Daniel Murphy
> has stepped it up. Just look at what we have to deal with:
> http://i.imgur.com/eGTH8.png . Terrible.
>
> Regards,
"Brad Anderson" wrote in message
news:mailman.228.1328074398.25230.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
>
> Walter toned it down somewhat and for that I'm grateful but Daniel Murphy
> has stepped it up. Just look at what we have to deal with:
> http://i.imgur.com/eGTH8.png . Terrible.
>
>
> Regards
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
> Recently there has been explosion in bug closures. This has had the
> unfortunate side effect of making it difficult to have a conversation in #d
> IRC with the bot constantly announcing these changes. I humbly request
> that those respons
nless you have seen the movie, you won't get it.
>
> And I have to admit, I didn't have any idea what he was talking about
> until I read later about googling for it, and learned what it meant.
>
> You don't even have your reference right :) It's a *Modest* pro
e to admit, I didn't have any idea what he was talking about
until I read later about googling for it, and learned what it meant.
You don't even have your reference right :) It's a *Modest* proposal.
-Steve
their own problem.
>> They are supposed to be programmers.
>>
>> Have no idea why isn't such post the one and only reply.
>
> And I in turn am amazed by the number of people who didn't notice that
> Brad's post was . uhm, how do I put that . not entirely se
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 05:42:27 +1100, FeepingCreature
wrote:
On 01/24/12 05:21, bcs wrote:
On 01/23/2012 06:10 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/23/2012 5:57 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
I understand some people like bug closures and who am I to judge but
there is a
limit to what some of us can tole
On 1/24/12 8:41 PM, Denis Shelomovskij wrote:
24.01.2012 19:28, David Nadlinger пишет:
And I in turn am amazed by the number of people who didn't notice that
Brad's post was … uhm, how do I put that … not entirely serious. For a
clue, you might want to look up »A modest proposa
On 1/24/2012 10:36 AM, Brad Anderson wrote:
Bogart? I'm pretty sure that comes from a Weird Al Yankovic movie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ
On 1/24/2012 10:36 AM, Brad Anderson wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Walter Bright mailto:newshou...@digitalmars.com>> wrote:
These days, I always get downvoted for referring to "steenkin' badges".
Apparently, nobody watches Bogart movies anymore. I guess I don't really
blame
idea why isn't such post the one and only reply.
And I in turn am amazed by the number of people who didn't notice that
Brad's post was … uhm, how do I put that … not entirely serious. For a
clue, you might want to look up »A modest proposal«.
David,
thinking of all the poor babie
might
want to look up »A modest proposal«.
These days, I always get downvoted for referring to "steenkin' badges".
Apparently, nobody watches Bogart movies anymore. I guess I don't really
blame them, his style of cool is obsolete.
I don't think it is. My prediction: when
On 01/24/12 05:21, bcs wrote:
> On 01/23/2012 06:10 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 1/23/2012 5:57 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
>>> I understand some people like bug closures and who am I to judge but
>>> there is a
>>> limit to what some of us can tolerate and it has been surpassed.
>>
>> I live to mak
how do I put that … not entirely serious. For a clue, you
>> might
>> want to look up »A modest proposal«.
>>
>
> These days, I always get downvoted for referring to "steenkin' badges".
> Apparently, nobody watches Bogart movies anymore. I guess I don'
On 1/24/2012 7:28 AM, David Nadlinger wrote:
On 1/24/12 4:16 PM, Denis Shelomovskij wrote:
And I in turn am amazed by the number of people who didn't notice that Brad's
post was … uhm, how do I put that … not entirely serious. For a clue, you might
want to look up »A modest proposal
On 1/24/2012 2:17 AM, k wrote:
Couldn't agree more. I've even been forced to increase the scrollback buffer
of my IRC client in order to not miss conversation pieces while just fetching
coffee, which of course uses up more RAM, not to say the extra tear on my
scroll wheel isn't concerning too. I'
ly reply.
And I in turn am amazed by the number of people who didn't notice that
Brad's post was … uhm, how do I put that … not entirely serious. For a
clue, you might want to look up »A modest proposal«.
David,
thinking of all the poor babies
24.01.2012 5:57, Brad Anderson пишет:
Recently there has been explosion in bug closures. This has had the
unfortunate side effect of making it difficult to have a conversation in
#d IRC with the bot constantly announcing these changes. I humbly
request that those responsible slow down this beha
On 24 January 2012 12:24, Marco Leise wrote:
> Am 24.01.2012, 05:00 Uhr, schrieb Bernard Helyer :
>
>
>> On Tuesday, 24 January 2012 at 03:52:25 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>
>>> "Bernard Helyer" wrote in message
>>> news:zqqqybjeqepidctwz...@dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
On Tue
Am 24.01.2012, 05:00 Uhr, schrieb Bernard Helyer :
On Tuesday, 24 January 2012 at 03:52:25 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Bernard Helyer" wrote in message
news:zqqqybjeqepidctwz...@dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
On Tuesday, 24 January 2012 at 03:01:25 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Mond
Brad Anderson Wrote:
> Recently there has been explosion in bug closures. This has had the
> unfortunate side effect of making it difficult to have a conversation in #d
> IRC with the bot constantly announcing these changes. I humbly request
> that those responsible slow down this behavior to a
On Tue, 2012-01-24 at 08:40 +, Iain Buclaw wrote:
[...]
>
> Godwin's Law.
Perhaps this could be turned into a variant of the game "Mornington
Crescent"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mornington_Crescent_(game)
:-)
--
Russel.
==
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:52:27 -0700
Brad Anderson wrote:
> Jonathan, Swiftly closing them is causing real pain for some of us.
> Certainly he could fix them and keep a log of the ones he fixed then
> actually close, say, 3 a day on bugzilla so it wouldn't be so noisy.
My suggestion is that Walte
On 24 January 2012 02:37, Bernard Helyer wrote:
> On Tuesday, 24 January 2012 at 02:17:09 UTC, Trass3r wrote:
>>
>> Adapt the bot or configure your client to ignore the bot. Plain simple.
>
>
> You know who else configured their client to ignore bots?
>
> Bin Laden.
>
> You thought I was going to
On Tuesday, 24 January 2012 at 05:25:59 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Monday, January 23, 2012 21:58:18 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Wait, Brad was being funny. No?
Well, if he was, it went completely over my head.
- Jonathan M Davis
Jonathan, Swiftly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonatho
On Monday, January 23, 2012 21:58:18 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Wait, Brad was being funny. No?
Well, if he was, it went completely over my head.
- Jonathan M Davis
On 01/23/2012 06:10 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/23/2012 5:57 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
I understand some people like bug closures and who am I to judge but
there is a
limit to what some of us can tolerate and it has been surpassed.
I live to make IRC users suffer. It's dessert after eating ba
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:57:16 +1100, Brad Anderson wrote:
Recently there has been explosion in bug closures.
Damn ... things are getting fixed ... we better put a stop to that sort of
thing before it gets totally out of hand.
--
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
On Tuesday, 24 January 2012 at 03:52:25 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
"Bernard Helyer" wrote in message
news:zqqqybjeqepidctwz...@dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
On Tuesday, 24 January 2012 at 03:01:25 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Monday, January 23, 2012 19:52:27 Brad Anderson wrote:
Jon
On 1/23/12 8:41 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday, January 23, 2012 18:57:16 Brad Anderson wrote:
Recently there has been explosion in bug closures. This has had the
unfortunate side effect of making it difficult to have a conversation in #d
IRC with the bot constantly announcing these chan
On 1/23/12 7:57 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
Recently there has been explosion in bug closures. This has had the
unfortunate side effect of making it difficult to have a conversation in
#d IRC with the bot constantly announcing these changes. I humbly
request that those responsible slow down this b
"Bernard Helyer" wrote in message
news:zqqqybjeqepidctwz...@dfeed.kimsufi.thecybershadow.net...
> On Tuesday, 24 January 2012 at 03:01:25 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> On Monday, January 23, 2012 19:52:27 Brad Anderson wrote:
>>> Jonathan, Swiftly closing them is causing real pain for some of u
On 1/23/2012 6:52 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
Jonathan, Swiftly closing them is causing real pain for some of us. Certainly
he could fix them and keep a log of the ones he fixed then actually close, say,
3 a day on bugzilla so it wouldn't be so noisy.
The IRC chaps could send me a couple bottles
On Tuesday, 24 January 2012 at 03:01:25 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Monday, January 23, 2012 19:52:27 Brad Anderson wrote:
Jonathan, Swiftly closing them is causing real pain for some
of us.
Certainly he could fix them and keep a log of the ones he
fixed then
actually close, say, 3 a day on
On Monday, January 23, 2012 19:52:27 Brad Anderson wrote:
> Jonathan, Swiftly closing them is causing real pain for some of us.
> Certainly he could fix them and keep a log of the ones he fixed then
> actually close, say, 3 a day on bugzilla so it wouldn't be so noisy.
Considering that what's doi
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Monday, January 23, 2012 18:57:16 Brad Anderson wrote:
> > Recently there has been explosion in bug closures. This has had the
> > unfortunate side effect of making it difficult to have a conversation in
> #d
> > IRC with the bot const
On Monday, January 23, 2012 18:57:16 Brad Anderson wrote:
> Recently there has been explosion in bug closures. This has had the
> unfortunate side effect of making it difficult to have a conversation in #d
> IRC with the bot constantly announcing these changes. I humbly request
> that those respo
On Tuesday, 24 January 2012 at 02:17:09 UTC, Trass3r wrote:
Adapt the bot or configure your client to ignore the bot. Plain
simple.
You know who else configured their client to ignore bots?
Bin Laden.
You thought I was going to say Hitler, didn't you? Well that's
silly, Hitler was long dead
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Trass3r wrote:
> Adapt the bot or configure your client to ignore the bot. Plain simple.
>
Appeasement? I refuse to make the same mistakes Neville Chamberlain made.
Regards,
Brad Anderson
On 01/24/2012 02:57 AM, Brad Anderson wrote:
Recently there has been explosion in bug closures. This has had the
unfortunate side effect of making it difficult to have a conversation in
#d IRC with the bot constantly announcing these changes. I humbly
request that those responsible slow down th
Adapt the bot or configure your client to ignore the bot. Plain simple.
On 1/23/2012 5:57 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
I understand some people like bug closures and who am I to judge but there is a
limit to what some of us can tolerate and it has been surpassed.
I live to make IRC users suffer. It's dessert after eating babies.
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:57:16 -0800, Brad Anderson wrote:
Recently there has been explosion in bug closures. This has had the
unfortunate side effect of making it difficult to have a conversation in
#d
IRC with the bot constantly announcing these changes. I humbly request
that those respons
Recently there has been explosion in bug closures. This has had the
unfortunate side effect of making it difficult to have a conversation in #d
IRC with the bot constantly announcing these changes. I humbly request
that those responsible slow down this behavior to a more tolerable level so
we can
dsimcha wrote:
1. Method calls don't need to be virtual.
2. An instance of a subclass cannot be converted to a final instance of the
base class.
3. A final instance can be implicitly converted to a non-final instance, but
the opposite would not work.
Using final as an instance attribute like
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Walter Bright wrote:
> dsimcha wrote:
>> == Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
>>> dsimcha wrote:
A possible
solution is, given a class:
class Foo {
// Actual implementation.
}
fi
dsimcha wrote:
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
dsimcha wrote:
A possible
solution is, given a class:
class Foo {
// Actual implementation.
}
final class FooFinal : Foo{
// Dummy that just makes Foo final.
}
With dmd:
final class A { }
class B
Reply to dsimcha,
Several people have griped in the past that D class methods are
virtual by default. I've pointed out to them that you can get around
this by making the methods final. However, this is a bit of a blunt
instrument, because some use cases for a single class may call for
polymorp
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
> dsimcha wrote:
> > A possible
> > solution is, given a class:
> >
> > class Foo {
> > // Actual implementation.
> > }
> >
> > final class FooFinal : Foo{
> > // Dummy that just makes Foo final.
> > }
> With dmd:
>final
dsimcha wrote:
A possible
solution is, given a class:
class Foo {
// Actual implementation.
}
final class FooFinal : Foo{
// Dummy that just makes Foo final.
}
With dmd:
final class A { }
class B : A { }
Compiling:
test.d(2): Error: class test.B cannot inherit from final clas
IMHO, this proposal does not go far enough. THose that worry about performance
also care about object size. If a vtable or monitor are needed, then people
will still avoid classes for performance.
dsimcha Wrote:
> Several people have griped in the past that D class methods are virtual by
> defa
Several people have griped in the past that D class methods are virtual by
default. I've pointed out to them that you can get around this by making the
methods final. However, this is a bit of a blunt instrument, because some use
cases for a single class may call for polymorphism and other use ca
83 matches
Mail list logo
