On 8 March 2013 18:06, Johannes Pfau <nos...@example.com> wrote: > Am Fri, 8 Mar 2013 17:11:41 +0100 > schrieb Johannes Pfau <nos...@example.com>: > > > Am Fri, 8 Mar 2013 15:18:53 +0000 > > schrieb Iain Buclaw <ibuc...@ubuntu.com>: > > > > > > > Yet not all attributes that GCC offers actually make sense to have > > > in D. We certainly need to have a review of each one and discuss > > > what is most important to have. Also defining our own unique > > > attributes along the way. :o) > > > > > > > To get the discussion started: I think we could adopt these LDC > > pragmas: > > > > LDC_no_typeinfo > > LDC_no_moduleinfo > > It seems no_moduleinfo can't be implemented this way as module > declarations can't be annotated with UDAs. > > Can attributes like LDC_no_typeinfo which shouldn't affect the backend > at all actually be implemented with the current mechanism? >
I'd say yes on both accounts. no_moduleinfo -> Don't call Module::genmoduleinfo() in ::genobjfile. no_typeinfo -> Maybe don't generate anything in TypeInfoDeclaration::toSymbol(). But will require investigating on that part. Again, both can be instead handled by a compiler switch. Regards -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
