Request for Review: DI Generation Improvements

[Alex Rønne Petersen]

On 15-05-2012 02:59, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Monday, May 14, 2012 17:36:49 Adam Wilson wrote:
>> This can be easily changed. Does anyone see any potential problems with
>> making this change?
>
> The only modules in druntime that I am aware of where there would be actual
> problems if their .d files were used instead of .di files would be those which
> already have hand-maintained .di files (core.thread and object are the only two
> that I'm aware of, though there might be others). Beyond that, core.rt
> definitely should be using .di files, but AFAIK, it wouldn't actually hurt
> anything beyond compilation times for them to be .d files, and AFAIK, all of
> the rest of druntime can be .d files without causing any problems. Most of them
> just hold C declarations anyway.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

core.rt? Do you mean rt.*? Those are completely and entirely private anyway.

-- 
- Alex