Am Sat, 16 Aug 2014 13:15:57 +0200 schrieb "Artur Skawina via D.gnu" <d.gnu@puremagic.com>:
> On 08/16/14 12:41, Mike via D.gnu wrote: > > On Saturday, 16 August 2014 at 09:59:03 UTC, Artur Skawina via > > D.gnu wrote: > >> > >> Taking the address of an always_inline function is allowed. > >> > > > > It may be allowed, but it probably shouldn't be. Always-inlining a > > function and taking the address of that function is contradictory. > > Address-of should work -- disallowing it wouldn't help much, but would > create problems for code that needs to call the function both directly > and indirectly. This is actually a larger problem for D than for C > (where it's allowed) because of generic code, templates and > delegates. The alternative would be requiring trivial not-@inline > wrappers and compile failures if one is accidentally forgotten. > > A `@nocode` attribute would be a good idea, yes, but there's no need > to make it implicit for `@inline`. We can make this explicit. I don't care enough to argue about that. > > But this situation demonstrates why having an intelligent linker is > > a better solution than decorating with attributes. The linker > > should know if you took an address of an always-inlined function or > > not and decide whether or not to remove it from the binary. > > It already does. Apparently there are some kind of problems with > certain setups, but, instead of addressing those problems, more and > more /language/ hacks are proposed... > > artur So as you know all these problems and you know exactly how to fix them, where's your contribution?
