Honey, I shrunk the build times

[Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 7 June 2015 at 08:59:46 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> I wouldn't have thought that not moving to 2.067 would be a 
> hold-up (there
> is nothing in that release that blocks building DDMD as it is 
> *now*).

The biggest problem is that releasing a ddmd which is compiled 
with dmd is unacceptable, because it incurs too large a 
performance hit (~20% IIRC), so we need either ldc or gdc to be 
at 2.067 so that we can use that to compile the release build of 
ddmd.

> But
> I have been promised time and again that there will be more 
> effort
> (infrastructure?) put in to help get LDC and GDC integrated 
> into the testing process for all new PRs.

That would be good, though I don't know what the situation with 
that is. However, I think that Daniel's top priority at this 
point is getting the frontend to the point that it's 
backend-agnostic and thus identical for all three backends, which 
should greatly help in having gdc and ldc keep up with dmd. That 
obviously wouldn't obviate the need for testing gdc and ldc, but 
it would reduce the effort to update them and maintain them.

- Jonathan M Davis