Please integrate build framework into the compiler

[Unknown W. Brackets]

Actually, dmd is so fast I never bother with these "build" utilities.  I 
just send it all the files and have it rebuild everytime, deleting all 
the o files afterward.

This is very fast, even for larger projects.  It appears (to me) the 
static cost of calling dmd is much greater than the dynamic cost of 
compiling a file.  These toolkits always compile a, then b, then c, 
which takes like 2.5 times as long as compiling a, b, and c at once.

That said, if dmd were made to link into other programs, these toolkits 
could hook into it, and have the fixed cost only once (theoretically) - 
but still dynamically decide which files to compile.  This seems ideal.

-[Unknown]


davidl wrote:
> 
> 1. compiler know in what situation a file need to be recompiled
> 
> Consider the file given the same header file, then the obj file of this 
> will be required for linking, all other files import this file shouldn't 
> require any recompilation in this case. If a file's header file changes, 
> thus the interface changes, all files import this file should be 
> recompiled.
> Compiler can emit building command like rebuild does.
> 
> I would enjoy:
> 
> dmd -buildingcommand abc.d  > responsefile
> 
> dmd @responsefile
> 
> I think we need to eliminate useless recompilation as much as we should 
> with consideration of the growing d project size.
> 
> 2. maintaining the build without compiler support costs
>