On 08/17/14 13:57, Johannes Pfau via D.gnu wrote:
> Am Sun, 17 Aug 2014 13:38:36 +0200
> schrieb "Artur Skawina via D.gnu" <d.gnu@puremagic.com>:
>
>> On 08/17/14 10:31, Johannes Pfau via D.gnu wrote:
>>> Am Sat, 16 Aug 2014 13:15:57 +0200
>>> schrieb "Artur Skawina via D.gnu" <d.gnu@puremagic.com>:
>>>
>>>> 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...
>>
>>> So as you know all these problems and you know exactly how to fix
>>> them, where's your contribution?
>>
>> *I* haven't encountered any problems and have been using functions+
>> data+gc-sections for years...
>>
>
> Then I don't understand your statement at all. You said 'instead of
> addressing those problems' but there are no problems?
I don't know - it wasn't me who proposed:
- attribute("noinit")
- attribute("notypeinfo")
- attribute("nocode")
- pragma(GNU_nomoduleinfo)
etc
> Also what exactly are 'more /language/ hacks'?
The above, volatile attribute etc. Note that I agree (some of) those
are necessary -- it's just that they are all useful for certain very
specific cases -- they are not a general solution to the codegen
bloat problem. A situation where practically every declaration and
almost every scope in a D program needs to be annotated with compiler-
-specific non-portable annotations is not a good one. And not even
a practical one -- it not reasonable to expect everyone to modify
the source of every used library (!) to match the requirements of
every project (some may need RTTI, other may not want it at all, etc).
artur
