output minimal .di files?

[Adam Wilson]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 03:53:05 -0800, F i L <witte2008 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Given the code, test.d:
>
>     import std.stdio;
>
>     export void test()
>     {
>         writeln("Test");
>     }
>
> compiled with: # dmd -lib -H test.d
> I end up with test.lib (good so far), and test.di:
>
>     import std.stdio;
>
>     export void test()
>     {
>     writeln("Test");
>     }
>
> wtf? why is test() fully represented? I thought interface files where  
> suppose to be minimal, interface only structures (like C .h files). When  
> I manually cut everything down to: "export void test();" everything  
> still works fine, so why is DMD spitting out the implementation?

I'm assuming that your goal is to build either or static or dynamic  
libraries?

If that is the case than you can assume that CTFE and inlining will not  
work anyways. This is an inherent limitation of libraries and not D. What  
D currently does is assume that you want everything to work, and spits out  
your implementation code symbol-for-symbol. The only thing I've found that  
D ever strips out of DI files is unittests. I have written a patch for DMD  
that strips out non-template class/function implementations with the  
understanding that CTFE and inlining will no longer work. Templated  
functions and classes retain their implementations, this is in line with  
the way C++ operates. Unfortunately my patch isn't well tested yet so I  
haven't opened the pull required to get it included into the main line DMD  
code. But it's a available from my Git account  
[https://LightBender@github.com/LightBender/dmd.git] if you don't mind  
building DMD yourself.

-- 
Adam Wilson
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/