DI File Generation

[Timon Gehr]

On 12/14/2011 09:24 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Wednesday, 14 December 2011 at 20:14:42 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> Considering that you must have the bodies of functions to do either
>> inlining or CTFE, stripping _anything_ from a .di file carries a
>> definite cost.
>
> I agree with you in general. I think the main use of .di files
> is for closed source libraries... which means we should probably
> go with putting as little in as possible.
>
>
> If you want it all, use your .d files directly.
>
> If you want a closed source lib, go with .di, then
> add back only what you want to release the source for
> (templates, ctfe functions, inline things) manually.
>

If a project grows sufficiently large, the possibility of having 
separate compilation is certainly important too. The compilation of my 
current project takes about 1.3s. If I compile every module on its own, 
I get a compile time of ~6s. That is because the semantic analysis of 
the code involves a fair bit of CTFE, and imported modules need to be 
semantically analyzed to a certain extent. Autogenerated .di files 
should work in a way that reduces this cost so that an efficient 
incremental compilation setup gets easy. If the autogenerated .di file 
contains the CTFE'd information, compilation gets a lot faster.