On 5 Apr 2014 19:55, "Johannes Pfau" <nos...@example.com> wrote: > > Am Sun, 6 Apr 2014 02:51:28 +1000 > schrieb "Daniel Murphy" <yebbliesnos...@gmail.com>: > > > "Johannes Pfau" wrote in message > > news:lhp8h4$2j38$1...@digitalmars.com... > > > > > But we'd want this to work/inline nevertheless, right?: > > > ------------ > > > void test(const(char)[] a) > > > { > > > } > > > > > > char[] abc; > > > test(abc); > > > ------------ > > > > > > Then we still need to tell GCC that const(char)[] is a variant of > > > char[] or it won't inline. > > > > Can you just strip all const/immutable/etc when the type is passed to > > the backend? > > > > This would impact debug info which is also emitted by the backend. GCC > supports 'variants' of types which means only different qualifiers but > the same apart from type qualifiers. We just need to set the variant > information correctly (e.g. const(char)[] should be recognized as a > variant of char[])
Right, and not having const applied to the type means that gcc might miss an optimisation opportunity. In this case however I think that parameters declared in should not be mapped to C-style 'const'. The 'in' keyword is close, but something other.
