I suggest that D is intended as a pragmatic language, and in that light:

1. this hack (yes, it's a hack) results in SUBSTANTIALLY higher performance at least with dmd. This is NOT a small improvement.
2. it does not damage or degrade in ANY WAY performance using other compilers.
3. the idea that performance under dmd must be reduced because ldc and gdc behave differently is not in the least pragmatic
4. I am quite open to adding what it takes (i.e. a hack) to get the same effect in ldc and gdc. Suggestions from someone who knows how to get them to do it are welcome.
5. the idea that dmd performance can be substantially degraded because "I'm not going to use dmd anyway" is, again, not pragmatic at all.
6. I'm also happy to wrap it in a `version (DigitalMars)` block, and probably should have done that to begin with
7. There is some sense of urgency with this, as it is an important precursor to doing some Phobos refactoring to eliminate use of the GC, which as we all know has become an important topic recently
8. I agree that it's probably time to open a DIP for discussion about the best way to make inline on/off a language feature
9. Even when such a DIP is implemented, one would have to go back and re-edit the source code for this module, i.e. "adding noinline" is no more work than "adding noinline and remove the hack".
10. I cannot imagine how the user of this module would be negatively affected in any way by the existence of this hack, but he will be negatively affected by its absence.