• Baz (25/25) Jul 17 2013 Hello, is there any particular reason why dmd would tell me that
• Jonathan M Davis (6/10) Jul 17 2013 I don't know if this particular issue with -inline is in bugzilla or not...
• Baz (5/18) Jul 17 2013 No the issue is not yet in bugzilla...but trust me, once I'll
• John Colvin (10/30) Jul 17 2013 AFAIK:
• =?UTF-8?B?QWxpIMOHZWhyZWxp?= (6/9) Jul 17 2013 I could not find that phrase in the dmd, dlang, or phobos sources.

"Baz" <burg.basile yahoo.com> writes:

Hello, is there any particular reason why dmd would tell me that 
the "Previous Definition different" when compiling a program with 
-inline while not when compiling it without the switch ?

more information:
- the message appears two times and it's about two methods used 
in a lib.
- the message doesn't appear when I compile the lib but when I 
compile a program using this lib.
- the two methods involved are private, used in another public 
method,
- the two methods involved are used recursively (but..., see 
above)
- the two methods involved are used via a single delegate (itself 
set according to the context.)

So the problem is clearly caused by the compiler optimizations 
performed when using the -inline switch. Unfortunately I cannot 
reproduce the issue in a simple example.

Would there be a method to avoid these two methods to be inlined 
? (so far I've tried to put their parameters as ref, but without 
success).

Is the bug described a "well known" issue with a "well known" 
workaround ?
(so far, I haven't found anything which is related, even with 
some serious forum/newsgroup investigation...)

Any idea ?

"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:

On Wednesday, July 17, 2013 16:01:23 Baz wrote:
 Is the bug described a "well known" issue with a "well known"
 workaround ?
 (so far, I haven't found anything which is related, even with
 some serious forum/newsgroup investigation...)

I don't know if this particular issue with -inline is in bugzilla or not 
(IIRC, there's at least one on how combining -inline and -O causes things to 
go wrong), but in general, the workaround for problems with flags like -inline 
or -O is to just not use them.

- Jonathan M Davis

"Baz" <burg.basile yahoo.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 17 July 2013 at 18:00:47 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
 On Wednesday, July 17, 2013 16:01:23 Baz wrote:
 Is the bug described a "well known" issue with a "well known"
 workaround ?
 (so far, I haven't found anything which is related, even with
 some serious forum/newsgroup investigation...)

 I don't know if this particular issue with -inline is in 
 bugzilla or not
 (IIRC, there's at least one on how combining -inline and -O 
 causes things to
 go wrong), but in general, the workaround for problems with 
 flags like -inline
 or -O is to just not use them.

 - Jonathan M Davis

No the issue is not yet in bugzilla...but trust me, once I'll 
find the way to reproduce it...people at digital mars WILL have 
to deal with it...

"John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 17 July 2013 at 20:58:41 UTC, Baz wrote:
 On Wednesday, 17 July 2013 at 18:00:47 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
 wrote:
 On Wednesday, July 17, 2013 16:01:23 Baz wrote:
 Is the bug described a "well known" issue with a "well known"
 workaround ?
 (so far, I haven't found anything which is related, even with
 some serious forum/newsgroup investigation...)

 I don't know if this particular issue with -inline is in 
 bugzilla or not
 (IIRC, there's at least one on how combining -inline and -O 
 causes things to
 go wrong), but in general, the workaround for problems with 
 flags like -inline
 or -O is to just not use them.

 - Jonathan M Davis

 No the issue is not yet in bugzilla...but trust me, once I'll 
 find the way to reproduce it...people at digital mars WILL have 
 to deal with it...

AFAIK:

struct DigitalMars
{
     immutable BadassCompilerDev WalterBright;
     alias WalterBright this;
}

However, there are a decent number of people who work on the 
compiler, so hopefully someone will put in some of their free 
time and get it fixed.

=?UTF-8?B?QWxpIMOHZWhyZWxp?= <acehreli yahoo.com> writes:

On 07/17/2013 07:01 AM, Baz wrote:

 Hello, is there any particular reason why dmd would tell me that the
 "Previous Definition different" when compiling a program with -inline
 while not when compiling it without the switch ?

I could not find that phrase in the dmd, dlang, or phobos sources. 
Apparently, it is a linker message. Here is another thread about the 
same issue, which links to yet another one:

   http://forum.dlang.org/thread/zkbrvrlvujmnnjqqpwep forum.dlang.org

Ali