On 2013-03-10 11:27, Rainer Schuetze wrote:

> The better option would be to pass all source files to update in one
> invocation of dmd, so it won't get slower than a full rebuild, but this
> has been plagued with linker errors in the past (undefined and duplicate
> symbols). If it works, it could identify independent group of files
> which you now separate into libraries.

I think this really should be fixed. But if I recall correctly I think Walter talked about using the -lib flag, this could perhaps be used as a workaround.

A .a/.lib file would be create which the object files need to be extracted from.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 2013-03-10 16:44, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:

> I think this is a serious problem. I hadn't thought of it before, but if
> we are designing our tools to work around implementation issues in the
> compiler, I think we're doing something wrong. Rather than meddling with
> a crippled incremental compilation model for rdmd that'll get obsoleted
> by a fixed compiler, how about attacking the problem directly?
>
> It doesn't help that the problems surrounding incremental compilation (I
> mean the general case with incrementally compiling a few modules at
> once, not deadalnix's bug) don't seem to be well-defined. Do we have a
> filed issue with a reproducible test case?

Search for posts by Tomasz Stachowiak (h3r3tic). He tried to implement incremental compilation a couple of years ago.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On 3/17/13, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote:
> Search for posts by Tomasz Stachowiak (h3r3tic). He tried to implement incremental compilation a couple of years ago.

https://bitbucket.org/h3r3tic/xfbuild/issue/7/make-incremental-building-reliable