Any takers for http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9673?

[Marco Leise]

Am Sun, 10 Mar 2013 16:44:36 +0100
schrieb "Vladimir Panteleev" <vladimir at thecybershadow.net>:

> I think this is a serious problem. I hadn't thought of it before, 
> but if we are designing our tools to work around implementation 
> issues in the compiler, I think we're doing something wrong. 
> Rather than meddling with a crippled incremental compilation 
> model for rdmd that'll get obsoleted by a fixed compiler, how 
> about attacking the problem directly?

+1, Mono-D is currently in the middle of a refactoring to use
rdmd to better handle project builds. Incremental builds were
possible in earlier versions, but caused the known problems.

> It doesn't help that the problems surrounding incremental 
> compilation (I mean the general case with incrementally compiling 
> a few modules at once, not deadalnix's bug) don't seem to be 
> well-defined. Do we have a filed issue with a reproducible test 
> case?

Maybe this _class_ of bug wasn't considered before. 
You just need to have one module with a template and another
one using it. If you change the template, the template module
will be recompiled (generating no code to speak of), while the
other file that actually instantiates the template remains
untouched.
Incremental builds end up with either outdated template
instances or linker errors until you force a rebuild.

-- 
Marco