www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - inlining

reply bobef <bobef nosmap-abv.bg> writes:
This has probably been asked many times before. If someone knows of such
discussion please paste me a link. Why not an 'inline' attribute? We all know
that the compiler can be stupid some times, and even if it is not people may
want to inline something that is normally not appropriate for inlining. Auto
inlining is fine, but people should have control over such kind of things I
believe.

Regards, bobef
Jul 17 2008
next sibling parent reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
If we're going to make the jump and expose these features to the programmer, a
noinline attribute to do the opposite might be nice also.  Here's a hypothetical
example of where that might be nice:

void myFunc(int foo) {
   foreach(i, 0..1_000_000) {
       if(foo < 5) {  //This is an unusual case, foo usually >5.
          bar(foo);
       }
       //Stuff that may change the value of foo.
   }
   //More stuff that may change the value of foo.
   foreach(i; 0..1_000_000) {
       if(foo < 5) {  //Again unusual
           bar(foo);
       }
       //More stuff that may change the value of foo.
   }
}

In this case the compiler, not understanding the high-level meaning of what is
being done, would likely not realize that foo is almost always >= 5 in
real-world
scenarios.  It would likely inline bar at both places it's called from,
contributing to code bloat, especially since it's called from a loop that
iterates
a lot of times.  However, since the programmer knows that the branch that calls
bar() will be taken very infrequently, the programmer might want to specify that
bar() should not be inlined.
Jul 17 2008
next sibling parent bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:
dsimcha:
 In this case the compiler, not understanding the high-level meaning of what is
 being done, would likely not realize that foo is almost always >= 5 in
real-world
 scenarios.
GCC has profile-guided optimization, that is often enough for the compiler to know what branch is the most frequent. In GCC there's the __builtin_expect() too for a similar purpose (if a branch calls a function rarely, the compiler understands it's probably not positive to inline it). Bye, bearophile
Jul 17 2008
prev sibling parent reply "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:
"dsimcha" wrote
 If we're going to make the jump and expose these features to the 
 programmer, a
 noinline attribute to do the opposite might be nice also.
Although a noinline directive would be ideal, it is technically possible to force non-inlining of functions by using D interface files (.di) to define the functions as prototypes, and only compile the real code in an object file. But that's a lot of work compared to just tagging the function. Forcing inlining, on the other hand, is impossible currently. -Steve
Jul 17 2008
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:g5p23e$2iue$1 digitalmars.com...
 "dsimcha" wrote
 If we're going to make the jump and expose these features to the 
 programmer, a
 noinline attribute to do the opposite might be nice also.
Although a noinline directive would be ideal, it is technically possible to force non-inlining of functions by using D interface files (.di) to define the functions as prototypes, and only compile the real code in an object file. But that's a lot of work compared to just tagging the function. Forcing inlining, on the other hand, is impossible currently. -Steve
You could write it as a string mixin.
Jul 17 2008
parent JAnderson <ask me.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote in message 
 news:g5p23e$2iue$1 digitalmars.com...
 "dsimcha" wrote
 If we're going to make the jump and expose these features to the 
 programmer, a
 noinline attribute to do the opposite might be nice also.
Although a noinline directive would be ideal, it is technically possible to force non-inlining of functions by using D interface files (.di) to define the functions as prototypes, and only compile the real code in an object file. But that's a lot of work compared to just tagging the function. Forcing inlining, on the other hand, is impossible currently. -Steve
You could write it as a string mixin.
What about using a template? Wouldn't that encourage the compiler to inline? -Joel
Jul 18 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
bobef wrote:
 This has probably been asked many times before. If someone knows of such
discussion please paste me a link. Why not an 'inline' attribute? We all know
that the compiler can be stupid some times, and even if it is not people may
want to inline something that is normally not appropriate for inlining. Auto
inlining is fine, but people should have control over such kind of things I
believe.
Looking ahead, I think macro() will reduce the need for an inline specifier. Yeh, it won't be quite the same, but it'll be close enough that making a separate inline keyword may not be worth it. --bb
Jul 17 2008
next sibling parent Jason House <jason.james.house gmail.com> writes:
Bill Baxter Wrote:

 bobef wrote:
 This has probably been asked many times before. If someone knows of such
discussion please paste me a link. Why not an 'inline' attribute? We all know
that the compiler can be stupid some times, and even if it is not people may
want to inline something that is normally not appropriate for inlining. Auto
inlining is fine, but people should have control over such kind of things I
believe.
Looking ahead, I think macro() will reduce the need for an inline specifier. Yeh, it won't be quite the same, but it'll be close enough that making a separate inline keyword may not be worth it. --bb
The last thing I want from a language is two completely different methods that may require me to flip implementation methods for assumed gains from compiler optimizations.
Jul 17 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote in message 
news:g5od1q$2v3b$3 digitalmars.com...
 bobef wrote:
 This has probably been asked many times before. If someone knows of such 
 discussion please paste me a link. Why not an 'inline' attribute? We all 
 know that the compiler can be stupid some times, and even if it is not 
 people may want to inline something that is normally not appropriate for 
 inlining. Auto inlining is fine, but people should have control over such 
 kind of things I believe.
Looking ahead, I think macro() will reduce the need for an inline specifier. Yeh, it won't be quite the same, but it'll be close enough that making a separate inline keyword may not be worth it. --bb
Macros aren't coming until D3.
Jul 17 2008
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Bill Baxter wrote:
 Looking ahead, I think macro() will reduce the need for an inline 
 specifier.
I don't see the need for an inline or non-inline specifier. It's as obsolete as the register keyword. Does anyone have a non-trivial non-contrived benchmark where a difference is measurable?
Jul 17 2008
next sibling parent reply Extrawurst <spam extrawurst.org> writes:
All i can say is, that over at work when profiling our 3D Game Engine, 
it is often the case that forcing the compiler to inline (MSVC 2005) 
helps making peaces of code faster.


Walter Bright schrieb:
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 Looking ahead, I think macro() will reduce the need for an inline 
 specifier.
I don't see the need for an inline or non-inline specifier. It's as obsolete as the register keyword. Does anyone have a non-trivial non-contrived benchmark where a difference is measurable?
Jul 18 2008
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Extrawurst wrote:
 All i can say is, that over at work when profiling our 3D Game Engine, 
 it is often the case that forcing the compiler to inline (MSVC 2005) 
 helps making peaces of code faster.
The -inline switch to the compiler will inline functions.
Jul 18 2008
parent "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound1 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:g5qnt3$227v$1 digitalmars.com...
 Extrawurst wrote:
 All i can say is, that over at work when profiling our 3D Game Engine, it 
 is often the case that forcing the compiler to inline (MSVC 2005) helps 
 making peaces of code faster.
The -inline switch to the compiler will inline functions.
Walter, I think he's _well aware_ of that. He's talking about forcing inlining, regardless of what the compiler thinks is best.
Jul 18 2008
prev sibling parent reply Matti Niemenmaa <see_signature for.real.address> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 I don't see the need for an inline or non-inline specifier. It's as 
 obsolete as the register keyword.
Then why was "inout" renamed to "ref"? Before you say, "so that we could have 'const ref'", let me note that ref in that sense is as obsolete as inline or register. It should just be "in" or the default and the compiler should figure out whether it's by-reference or by-value. -- E-mail address: matti.niemenmaa+news, domain is iki (DOT) fi
Jul 18 2008
next sibling parent reply superdan <super dan.org> writes:
Matti Niemenmaa Wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:
 I don't see the need for an inline or non-inline specifier. It's as 
 obsolete as the register keyword.
Then why was "inout" renamed to "ref"? Before you say, "so that we could have 'const ref'", let me note that ref in that sense is as obsolete as inline or register. It should just be "in" or the default and the compiler should figure out whether it's by-reference or by-value.
how is that even close to making sense? before you say, "but value vs. 'in' is entirely transparent to the user", let me note that aliasing is going to fuck that plan right there. deciding value vs. reference only works for invariant shit. it's in fact part of why invariant shit is so fucking brilliant.
Jul 18 2008
next sibling parent reply "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"superdan" <super dan.org> wrote in message 
news:g5qa4f$n1g$1 digitalmars.com...
 Matti Niemenmaa Wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:
 I don't see the need for an inline or non-inline specifier. It's as
 obsolete as the register keyword.
Then why was "inout" renamed to "ref"? Before you say, "so that we could have 'const ref'", let me note that ref in that sense is as obsolete as inline or register. It should just be "in" or the default and the compiler should figure out whether it's by-reference or by-value.
how is that even close to making sense? before you say, "but value vs. 'in' is entirely transparent to the user", let me note that aliasing is going to fuck that plan right there. deciding value vs. reference only works for invariant shit. it's in fact part of why invariant shit is so fucking brilliant.
Dan, you make good points and seem to have a head on your shoulders, but the swearing really is unnecessary. That doesn't mean I don't swear, I do it all the time. But this is not really the place for it. Consider how much more coherent and reasonable your post sounds like this: ---- how is that even close to making sense? before you say, "but value vs. 'in' is entirely transparent to the user", let me note that aliasing is going to completely invalidate that plan right there. deciding value vs. reference only works for invariant data. it's in fact part of why invariant data is so incredibly brilliant. ---- Please don't take this as an attack, I'm not trying to make you feel like you're less of a member of the community. Swearing on the internet just makes you seem like a 13-year-old boy.
Jul 18 2008
parent BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:
Reply to Jarrett,

 Swearing on the
 internet just makes you seem like a 13-year-old boy.
 
tactful and well put On the Internet often the /only/ available view of a person is what they type. As I often quit reading after the 2nd or 3rd cuss word, it's easy to never see anything inelegant that might be written later (and I don't consider this a problem).
Jul 18 2008
prev sibling parent reply Matti Niemenmaa <see_signature for.real.address> writes:
superdan wrote:
 before you say, "but value vs. 'in' is entirely transparent to the user", let
 me note that aliasing is going to fuck that plan right there.
 
 deciding value vs. reference only works for invariant shit. it's in fact part
 of why invariant shit is so fucking brilliant.
If it's a const reference, aliasing doesn't matter, no? Or am I missing something about D2's latest const system (quite possible)? One should only be reading from a const ref so it's semantically equivalent to just 'in'. 'inout' should still be there, with reasonable aliasing restrictions. -- E-mail address: matti.niemenmaa+news, domain is iki (DOT) fi
Jul 18 2008
parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Matti Niemenmaa wrote:
 superdan wrote:
 before you say, "but value vs. 'in' is entirely transparent to the 
 user", let
 me note that aliasing is going to fuck that plan right there.

 deciding value vs. reference only works for invariant shit. it's in 
 fact part
 of why invariant shit is so fucking brilliant.
If it's a const reference, aliasing doesn't matter, no? Or am I missing something about D2's latest const system (quite possible)? One should only be reading from a const ref so it's semantically equivalent to just 'in'.
It would have to be an invariant ref, not a const ref, for aliasing to not matter.
 
 'inout' should still be there, with reasonable aliasing restrictions.
 
Jul 18 2008
prev sibling parent reply superdan <super dan.org> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:

 "superdan" <super dan.org> wrote in message 
 news:g5qa4f$n1g$1 digitalmars.com...
 Matti Niemenmaa Wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:
 I don't see the need for an inline or non-inline specifier. It's as
 obsolete as the register keyword.
Then why was "inout" renamed to "ref"? Before you say, "so that we could have 'const ref'", let me note that ref in that sense is as obsolete as inline or register. It should just be "in" or the default and the compiler should figure out whether it's by-reference or by-value.
how is that even close to making sense? before you say, "but value vs. 'in' is entirely transparent to the user", let me note that aliasing is going to fuck that plan right there. deciding value vs. reference only works for invariant shit. it's in fact part of why invariant shit is so fucking brilliant.
Dan, you make good points and seem to have a head on your shoulders, but the swearing really is unnecessary. That doesn't mean I don't swear, I do it all the time. But this is not really the place for it. Consider how much more coherent and reasonable your post sounds like this: ---- how is that even close to making sense? before you say, "but value vs. 'in' is entirely transparent to the user", let me note that aliasing is going to completely invalidate that plan right there. deciding value vs. reference only works for invariant data. it's in fact part of why invariant data is so incredibly brilliant. ---- Please don't take this as an attack, I'm not trying to make you feel like you're less of a member of the community. Swearing on the internet just makes you seem like a 13-year-old boy.
you're a good guy jarrett so i'll reply to this. the problem is i'm not a good guy. anyone who knows me would agree i'm a gaping asshole. but at least i'm not bullshitting. if i say something online you know i could say the same to your face. and anyone fucking with me will get a good serving of knuckle juice with shin extract for good measure. so why would i lie online by being nice. if anything pisses me off it's the opposite phenomenon: people who are all nicey-nicey in real life and they let their fucking aggression go berserk online. if most would have to say to another's face 10% of what they say online, they'd shit in their pants. as an example. i couldn't make it to the d conference last year. did anyone start a fight? i bet not. yet if this group was any indication, that would've been a fucking ufc conference, not a d conference. sticking online with what you could afford saying irl is the best way.
Jul 22 2008
parent reply JAnderson <ask me.com> writes:
superdan wrote:
 Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:
 Please don't take this as an attack, I'm not trying to make you feel like 
 you're less of a member of the community.  Swearing on the internet just 
 makes you seem like a 13-year-old boy. 
I'm glad I'm not the only one. In general I find it hard to read someone text if it has swearing all over it. I generally ignore those emails as I feel they have no valuable content and they make me feel sick. I don't want to be thinking about the bathroom while in technical discussions. If someone wants to be taken seriously they should try to at least communicate with proper edicate. -Joel
Jul 29 2008
next sibling parent reply superdan <super dan.org> writes:
JAnderson Wrote:

 superdan wrote:
 Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:
 Please don't take this as an attack, I'm not trying to make you feel like 
 you're less of a member of the community.  Swearing on the internet just 
 makes you seem like a 13-year-old boy. 
I'm glad I'm not the only one. In general I find it hard to read someone text if it has swearing all over it. I generally ignore those emails as I feel they have no valuable content and they make me feel sick. I don't want to be thinking about the bathroom while in technical discussions. If someone wants to be taken seriously they should try to at least communicate with proper edicate.
you almost had me convinced. then i saw the last word. shit man. edicate? did you mean etiquette? are you gwb undercover?
Jul 29 2008
next sibling parent BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:
Reply to superdan,

 you almost had me convinced. then i saw the last word. shit man.
 edicate? did you mean etiquette? are you gwb undercover?
 
Bad speling does not invalideat a point (ignoreing things like "this statemeant is speled corectly"). The only reson that bad speling wood make a diference is if the readar is incapeble of logikal though and asumes that if the righter can spel that the argumint is valod. Bad spelling does not invalidate a point (ignoring things like "this statement is spelled correctly"). The only reason that bad spelling would make a difference is if the reader is incapable of logical though and assumes that if the writer can spell that the argument is valid. QED
Jul 29 2008
prev sibling parent reply JAnderson <ask me.com> writes:
superdan wrote:
 JAnderson Wrote:
 
 superdan wrote:
 Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:
 Please don't take this as an attack, I'm not trying to make you feel like 
 you're less of a member of the community.  Swearing on the internet just 
 makes you seem like a 13-year-old boy. 
I'm glad I'm not the only one. In general I find it hard to read someone text if it has swearing all over it. I generally ignore those emails as I feel they have no valuable content and they make me feel sick. I don't want to be thinking about the bathroom while in technical discussions. If someone wants to be taken seriously they should try to at least communicate with proper edicate.
you almost had me convinced. then i saw the last word. edicate? did you mean etiquette? are you gwb undercover?
What if English was my second language? Would that invalidate my opinion? -Joel BTW: My first language is C++ followed by D, then English :)
Jul 31 2008
parent superdan <super dan.org> writes:
JAnderson Wrote:

 superdan wrote:
 JAnderson Wrote:
 
 superdan wrote:
 Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:
 Please don't take this as an attack, I'm not trying to make you feel like 
 you're less of a member of the community.  Swearing on the internet just 
 makes you seem like a 13-year-old boy. 
I'm glad I'm not the only one. In general I find it hard to read someone text if it has swearing all over it. I generally ignore those emails as I feel they have no valuable content and they make me feel sick. I don't want to be thinking about the bathroom while in technical discussions. If someone wants to be taken seriously they should try to at least communicate with proper edicate.
you almost had me convinced. then i saw the last word. edicate? did you mean etiquette? are you gwb undercover?
What if English was my second language? Would that invalidate my opinion? -Joel BTW: My first language is C++ followed by D, then English :)
odd. "edicate" is typical for americans who hear it and don't bother to spell it. foreigners usually spell properly. at any rate: spell checkers leave little room for excuse. until a good argument comes along, i'll continue making sailors cry.
Jul 31 2008
prev sibling parent reply "Chris R. Miller" <lordSaurontheGreat gmail.com> writes:
JAnderson wrote:
 superdan wrote:
 Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:
=20
 Please don't take this as an attack, I'm not trying to make you feel =
 like you're less of a member of the community.  Swearing on the=20
 internet just makes you seem like a 13-year-old boy.=20
=20 I'm glad I'm not the only one. =20 In general I find it hard to read someone text if it has swearing all=20 over it. I generally ignore those emails as I feel they have no=20 valuable content and they make me feel sick. I don't want to be=20 thinking about the bathroom while in technical discussions. =20 If someone wants to be taken seriously they should try to at least=20 communicate with proper edicate.
Well if you're ______ity _____ cussing all the _____ time it makes your=20 _______ing messages so much _______ing longer it takes so ______ing long = to _______ing read them that I just _____ing ignore them.
Jul 29 2008
parent reply superdan <super dan.org> writes:
Chris R. Miller Wrote:

 JAnderson wrote:
 superdan wrote:
 Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:
 Please don't take this as an attack, I'm not trying to make you feel 
 like you're less of a member of the community.  Swearing on the 
 internet just makes you seem like a 13-year-old boy. 
I'm glad I'm not the only one. In general I find it hard to read someone text if it has swearing all over it. I generally ignore those emails as I feel they have no valuable content and they make me feel sick. I don't want to be thinking about the bathroom while in technical discussions. If someone wants to be taken seriously they should try to at least communicate with proper edicate.
Well if you're ______ity _____ cussing all the _____ time it makes your _______ing messages so much _______ing longer it takes so ______ing long to _______ing read them that I just _____ing ignore them.
did you mean "your"?
Jul 29 2008
parent reply "Chris R. Miller" <lordSaurontheGreat gmail.com> writes:
superdan wrote:
 Chris R. Miller Wrote:
=20
 JAnderson wrote:
 superdan wrote:
 Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:
 Please don't take this as an attack, I'm not trying to make you fee=
l=20
 like you're less of a member of the community.  Swearing on the=20
 internet just makes you seem like a 13-year-old boy.=20
I'm glad I'm not the only one. In general I find it hard to read someone text if it has swearing all=
=20
 over it.  I generally ignore those emails as I feel they have no=20
 valuable content and they make me feel sick.  I don't want to be=20
 thinking about the bathroom while in technical discussions.

 If someone wants to be taken seriously they should try to at least=20
 communicate with proper edicate.
Well if you're ______ity _____ cussing all the _____ time it makes you=
r=20
 _______ing messages so much _______ing longer it takes so ______ing lo=
ng=20
 to _______ing read them that I just _____ing ignore them.
=20 did you mean "your"?
No, my grammar was correct. You're =3D you are (contraction), your =3D y= ou=20 (possessive). Perhaps you'd like to go play the part of a Grammar Nazi with the other=20 guys on irc.freenode.net/##English ?
Jul 29 2008
next sibling parent reply BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:
Reply to Chris,

 superdan wrote:
 
 Chris R. Miller Wrote:
 
 Well if you're ______ity _____ cussing all the _____ time it makes
 your _______ing messages so much _______ing longer it takes so
 ______ing long to _______ing read them that I just _____ing ignore
 them.
 
did you mean "your"?
No, my grammar was correct. You're = you are (contraction), your = you (possessive). Perhaps you'd like to go play the part of a Grammar Nazi with the other guys on irc.freenode.net/##English ?
to give him /some/ credit: I think, depending on what ______ and _____ is used, "your" and "you're" may both be correct. But who the _____* cares! * I can see it now, this thread will end in a post with nothing but _s and ' 's.
Jul 29 2008
parent "Simen Kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:47:41 +0200, BCS <ao pathlink.com> wrote:

 Reply to Chris,

 superdan wrote:

 Chris R. Miller Wrote:

 Well if you're ______ity _____ cussing all the _____ time it makes
 your _______ing messages so much _______ing longer it takes so
 ______ing long to _______ing read them that I just _____ing ignore
 them.
did you mean "your"?
No, my grammar was correct. You're = you are (contraction), your = you (possessive). Perhaps you'd like to go play the part of a Grammar Nazi with the other guys on irc.freenode.net/##English ?
to give him /some/ credit: I think, depending on what ______ and _____ is used, "your" and "you're" may both be correct. But who the _____* cares! * I can see it now, this thread will end in a post with nothing but _s and ' 's.
___ _____ __! _____ __. ______ __ __ _____ __________________. -- Simen
Jul 29 2008
prev sibling parent reply superdan <super dan.org> writes:
Chris R. Miller Wrote:

 superdan wrote:
 Chris R. Miller Wrote:
 
 JAnderson wrote:
 superdan wrote:
 Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:
 Please don't take this as an attack, I'm not trying to make you feel 
 like you're less of a member of the community.  Swearing on the 
 internet just makes you seem like a 13-year-old boy. 
I'm glad I'm not the only one. In general I find it hard to read someone text if it has swearing all over it. I generally ignore those emails as I feel they have no valuable content and they make me feel sick. I don't want to be thinking about the bathroom while in technical discussions. If someone wants to be taken seriously they should try to at least communicate with proper edicate.
Well if you're ______ity _____ cussing all the _____ time it makes your _______ing messages so much _______ing longer it takes so ______ing long to _______ing read them that I just _____ing ignore them.
did you mean "your"?
No, my grammar was correct. You're = you are (contraction), your = you (possessive). Perhaps you'd like to go play the part of a Grammar Nazi with the other guys on irc.freenode.net/##English ?
it was a legit question, einstein. i couldn't figure out what "____ity" means. at any rate. if someone asks me to change my language, they'd be a lot more credible if they had theirs in good shape. cussing is a choice. "edicate" is ignorance.
Jul 29 2008
next sibling parent "Chris R. Miller" <lordSaurontheGreat gmail.com> writes:
superdan wrote:
 Chris R. Miller Wrote:
=20
 superdan wrote:
 Chris R. Miller Wrote:

 JAnderson wrote:
 superdan wrote:
 Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:
 Please don't take this as an attack, I'm not trying to make you f=
eel=20
 like you're less of a member of the community.  Swearing on the=20
 internet just makes you seem like a 13-year-old boy.=20
I'm glad I'm not the only one. In general I find it hard to read someone text if it has swearing a=
ll=20
 over it.  I generally ignore those emails as I feel they have no=20
 valuable content and they make me feel sick.  I don't want to be=20
 thinking about the bathroom while in technical discussions.

 If someone wants to be taken seriously they should try to at least =
 communicate with proper edicate.
Well if you're ______ity _____ cussing all the _____ time it makes y=
our=20
 _______ing messages so much _______ing longer it takes so ______ing =
long=20
 to _______ing read them that I just _____ing ignore them.
did you mean "your"?
No, my grammar was correct. You're =3D you are (contraction), your =3D=
you=20
 (possessive).

 Perhaps you'd like to go play the part of a Grammar Nazi with the othe=
r=20
 guys on irc.freenode.net/##English ?
=20 it was a legit question, einstein. i couldn't figure out what "____ity"=
means. Fair enough.
 at any rate. if someone asks me to change my language, they'd be a lot =
more credible if they had theirs in good shape. cussing is a choice. "edi= cate" is ignorance. Cussing in a _public_ forum is absolutely intolerable. Savvy?
Jul 29 2008
prev sibling parent Yigal Chripun <yigal100 gmail.com> writes:
superdan wrote:
<snip/>
 
 it was a legit question, einstein. i couldn't figure out what
 "____ity" means.
 
 at any rate. if someone asks me to change my language, they'd be a
 lot more credible if they had theirs in good shape. cussing is a
 choice. "edicate" is ignorance.
I disagree. cussing shows lack of manners and lack of respect towards the people you try to communicate with. bad spelling can only show a lack of a spell checker. you forget that this is an international forum and so is most of the internet. Not all humanity is required to speak English, and even English speakers can make typos. I try to write in proper English (even though it's /not/ my native tongue) and I also run the spell checker because I respect the people of this forum. Certainly you can also show a little more respect towards the people here.
Aug 01 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent reply JAnderson <ask me.com> writes:
bobef wrote:
 This has probably been asked many times before. If someone knows of such
discussion please paste me a link. Why not an 'inline' attribute? We all know
that the compiler can be stupid some times, and even if it is not people may
want to inline something that is normally not appropriate for inlining. Auto
inlining is fine, but people should have control over such kind of things I
believe.
 
 Regards, bobef
May C++ compilers ignore the inline attribute because it has a better handle on when to inline. There have been some studies (does anyone have the links to these) where they've shown that most of the time the compiler can make a more intelligent guess then the average engineer. But that's C++. D does this automatic virtual's thing so its difficult to say whether the compiler can always make a good choice. -Joel
Jul 17 2008
parent reply JAnderson <ask me.com> writes:
JAnderson wrote:
 bobef wrote:
 This has probably been asked many times before. If someone knows of 
 such discussion please paste me a link. Why not an 'inline' attribute? 
 We all know that the compiler can be stupid some times, and even if it 
 is not people may want to inline something that is normally not 
 appropriate for inlining. Auto inlining is fine, but people should 
 have control over such kind of things I believe.

 Regards, bobef
May C++ compilers ignore the inline attribute because it has a better handle on when to inline. There have been some studies (does anyone have the links to these) where they've shown that most of the time the compiler can make a more intelligent guess then the average engineer. But that's C++. D does this automatic virtual's thing so its difficult to say whether the compiler can always make a good choice. -Joel
I was working with MSVC++ the other day and found a couple of places where it wasn't inlining the code and was running slow. So I placed a few inlines around and *bam* that code started running faster. Then I profiled the code as a whole to see how much of an improvement I'd gained. However the game was actually running slower. It turned out that inlining had simply shifted the bottneck into memory and the program file size had got bigger, so the program cache was stalling all the time. I'm not against inlining, I just think that you have to be really careful when using it and understand its implications (ie use a profiler), otherwise you could be making things worse. -Joel
Jul 18 2008
parent reply Don <nospam nospam.com.au> writes:
JAnderson wrote:
 JAnderson wrote:
 bobef wrote:
 This has probably been asked many times before. If someone knows of 
 such discussion please paste me a link. Why not an 'inline' 
 attribute? We all know that the compiler can be stupid some times, 
 and even if it is not people may want to inline something that is 
 normally not appropriate for inlining. Auto inlining is fine, but 
 people should have control over such kind of things I believe.

 Regards, bobef
May C++ compilers ignore the inline attribute because it has a better handle on when to inline. There have been some studies (does anyone have the links to these) where they've shown that most of the time the compiler can make a more intelligent guess then the average engineer. But that's C++. D does this automatic virtual's thing so its difficult to say whether the compiler can always make a good choice. -Joel
I was working with MSVC++ the other day and found a couple of places where it wasn't inlining the code and was running slow. So I placed a few inlines around and *bam* that code started running faster. Then I profiled the code as a whole to see how much of an improvement I'd gained. However the game was actually running slower. It turned out that inlining had simply shifted the bottneck into memory and the program file size had got bigger, so the program cache was stalling all the time. I'm not against inlining, I just think that you have to be really careful when using it and understand its implications (ie use a profiler), otherwise you could be making things worse. -Joel
Yup. Code cache can easily become a bottleneck. Similarly, turning on 'optimise for speed' for a whole program is almost always a bad idea. More useful than 'inline', would be some way to tell the compiler 'this function is speed-critical'. If nothing else, it would have some documentation value.
Jul 18 2008
next sibling parent superdan <super dan.org> writes:
Don Wrote:

 JAnderson wrote:
 JAnderson wrote:
 bobef wrote:
 This has probably been asked many times before. If someone knows of 
 such discussion please paste me a link. Why not an 'inline' 
 attribute? We all know that the compiler can be stupid some times, 
 and even if it is not people may want to inline something that is 
 normally not appropriate for inlining. Auto inlining is fine, but 
 people should have control over such kind of things I believe.

 Regards, bobef
May C++ compilers ignore the inline attribute because it has a better handle on when to inline. There have been some studies (does anyone have the links to these) where they've shown that most of the time the compiler can make a more intelligent guess then the average engineer. But that's C++. D does this automatic virtual's thing so its difficult to say whether the compiler can always make a good choice. -Joel
I was working with MSVC++ the other day and found a couple of places where it wasn't inlining the code and was running slow. So I placed a few inlines around and *bam* that code started running faster. Then I profiled the code as a whole to see how much of an improvement I'd gained. However the game was actually running slower. It turned out that inlining had simply shifted the bottneck into memory and the program file size had got bigger, so the program cache was stalling all the time. I'm not against inlining, I just think that you have to be really careful when using it and understand its implications (ie use a profiler), otherwise you could be making things worse. -Joel
Yup. Code cache can easily become a bottleneck. Similarly, turning on 'optimise for speed' for a whole program is almost always a bad idea. More useful than 'inline', would be some way to tell the compiler 'this function is speed-critical'. If nothing else, it would have some documentation value.
just use the 'super' keyword: void myfunc() super { } :)
Jul 18 2008
prev sibling parent JAnderson <ask me.com> writes:
Don wrote:
 JAnderson wrote:
 JAnderson wrote:
 bobef wrote:
 This has probably been asked many times before. If someone knows of 
 such discussion please paste me a link. Why not an 'inline' 
 attribute? We all know that the compiler can be stupid some times, 
 and even if it is not people may want to inline something that is 
 normally not appropriate for inlining. Auto inlining is fine, but 
 people should have control over such kind of things I believe.

 Regards, bobef
May C++ compilers ignore the inline attribute because it has a better handle on when to inline. There have been some studies (does anyone have the links to these) where they've shown that most of the time the compiler can make a more intelligent guess then the average engineer. But that's C++. D does this automatic virtual's thing so its difficult to say whether the compiler can always make a good choice. -Joel
I was working with MSVC++ the other day and found a couple of places where it wasn't inlining the code and was running slow. So I placed a few inlines around and *bam* that code started running faster. Then I profiled the code as a whole to see how much of an improvement I'd gained. However the game was actually running slower. It turned out that inlining had simply shifted the bottneck into memory and the program file size had got bigger, so the program cache was stalling all the time. I'm not against inlining, I just think that you have to be really careful when using it and understand its implications (ie use a profiler), otherwise you could be making things worse. -Joel
Yup. Code cache can easily become a bottleneck. Similarly, turning on 'optimise for speed' for a whole program is almost always a bad idea.
I've had some good results with whole program optimisation. However not always.
 
 More useful than 'inline', would be some way to tell the compiler 'this 
 function is speed-critical'. If nothing else, it would have some 
 documentation value.
I think that's a good idea. The compiler could also spin more cycles to optimize that piece of code. -Joel
Jul 18 2008
prev sibling next sibling parent Era Scarecrow <rtcvb32 yahoo.com> writes:
 JAnderson wrote:
 bobef wrote:
 This has probably been asked many times before. If
someone knows of
 such discussion please paste me a link. Why not an
'inline' attribute?
 We all know that the compiler can be stupid some
times, and even if it
 is not people may want to inline something that is
normally not
 appropriate for inlining. Auto inlining is fine,
but people should
 have control over such kind of things I believe.

 Regards, bobef
May C++ compilers ignore the inline attribute because
it has a better
 handle on when to inline.  There have been some
studies (does anyone
 have the links to these) where they've shown that
most of the time the
 compiler can make a more intelligent guess then the
average engineer.
 
 But that's C++.  D does this automatic
virtual's thing so its difficult
 to say whether the compiler can always make a good
choice.
 
 -Joel
I was working with MSVC++ the other day and found a couple of places where it wasn't inlining the code and was running slow. So I placed a few inlines around and *bam* that code started running faster. Then I profiled the code as a whole to see how much of an improvement I'd gained. However the game was actually running slower. It turned out that inlining had simply shifted the bottneck into memory and the program file size had got bigger, so the program cache was stalling all the time. I'm not against inlining, I just think that you have to be really careful when using it and understand its implications (ie use a profiler), otherwise you could be making things worse.
A good point. Recently i've stepped away from C and trying to get away from ultra-optimizing code (which has made my best project look sloppy and i notice is ridden with extra code, in order to get gains that i am not sure i'm actually getting) Could we, for instance use a profiler to comment and pull information from a running program, and than use that to get optimizations that it might otherwise have not noted? I recall something like this, but i don't want to look it up. bare with me.
(not exactly as before, but close)
 if (b)
   a = something;
 else
   a = somethingElse;
Then say b had a 90% chance of being positive or negative, the running profiler seeing that would then take the needed steps on a re-compiling stage using that profiling in order to optimize, without worrying about portability and readability problems? We see the above code, the compiler does... (if b is greater for being positive) a=something; if (!b) a=somethingElse; Course, unless there's something big or slow in the calls, or SomethingElse takes longer than something (besides a simple type), i don't think there's much of a speed gain. If for example the opposite was true.. (if b is greater for being positive) char []buffer; //what for i'm not sure. buffer=something; if (!someflag) buffer=new char[xxx]; Then the speed gains from not having to initialize the memory for some flag is still true, although it wouldn't be much speed gains honestly. hmm.. (Assembly would say, 1 compare, 1 jump, 1 assignment/call, regardless) Oh well. Thoughts on an external profiler to assist with the compiler with optimization? Era
Jul 19 2008
prev sibling parent Era Scarecrow <rtcvb32 yahoo.com> writes:
  Oh well. Thoughts on an external profiler to assist with
 the compiler with optimization?
My apologies, i'm catching up on 2 days of reading and digests. Perhaps i should keep my mouth shut. It's only after i post that 3-4 messages later i see the very topic i commented on is already in discussion. :( Era
Jul 19 2008