Request for Review: DI Generation Improvements

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 03:20:24 Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> 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.

Probably. I didn't look at the source tree before posting. My point was that 
the rt stuff shouldn't be provided as .d files (however they may be organized), 
whereas pretty much everything other than core.thread and object should be fine 
as .d files AFAIK.

- Jonathan M Davis