https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13517

Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei@erdani.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |preapproved

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13517

Ketmar Dark <ketmar@ketmar.no-ip.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |ketmar@ketmar.no-ip.org

--- Comment #1 from Ketmar Dark <ketmar@ketmar.no-ip.org> ---
but why compiler should do that? it's a build tool task. the build tool should know that .di file is generated from .d and invoke generator only if .di file is missing or older than .d.

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13517

--- Comment #2 from Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei@erdani.com> ---
Hoisting the approach in the compiler will make it easier for people using build tools.

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13517

--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Panteleev <thecybershadow@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Ketmar Dark from comment #1)
> but why compiler should do that? it's a build tool task. the build tool should know that .di file is generated from .d and invoke generator only if .di file is missing or older than .d.

That idea only applies if you want to do .di generation as a separate compiler invocation from compilation.

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13517

--- Comment #4 from Ketmar Dark <ketmar@ketmar.no-ip.org> ---
(In reply to Vladimir Panteleev from comment #3)
> That idea only applies if you want to do .di generation as a separate compiler invocation from compilation.
and why you wouldn't, having the build tool? speed gain is neglible, and compiler gains new useless code.

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13517

--- Comment #5 from Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei@erdani.com> ---
Again: hoisting this into the compiler lowers the barrier of entry and simplifies the life of anyone building D code with .di files.

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13517

Walter Bright <bugzilla@digitalmars.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |bugzilla@digitalmars.com
           Hardware|x86                         |All
                 OS|Mac OS X                    |All

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13517

--- Comment #6 from Walter Bright <bugzilla@digitalmars.com> ---
The generated object file isn't compared against the existing one, why should other generated files? It seems strange to me to make the .di generation special in this way.

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13517

--- Comment #7 from Ketmar Dark <ketmar@ketmar.no-ip.org> ---
(In reply to Andrei Alexandrescu from comment #5)
> Again: hoisting this into the compiler lowers the barrier of entry and simplifies the life of anyone building D code with .di files.
again: no, it's not.

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13517

--- Comment #8 from Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei@erdani.com> ---
(In reply to Walter Bright from comment #6)
> The generated object file isn't compared against the existing one, why should other generated files? It seems strange to me to make the .di generation special in this way.

Thanks for asking. The difference here is that only the linked binary depends on the .o file, whereas a lot more build artifacts depend on the .di file.

--