4 ms·
I don't see where in pcwalton's comment he alludes that the Delphi compiler's definition of incremental compilation doesn't match his own. He explicitly says "
by Manishearth 10y ago
I don't see where in pcwalton's comment he alludes that the Delphi compiler's definition of incremental compilation doesn't match his own.
He explicitly says "Incremental compilation is when the compiler automatically figures out what needs to be recompiled".
(He does say that production compilers don't have incremental compilation, but that's not a matter of definition, and I read that to mean "usually don't")
- coldtea 10y ago>He explicitly says "Incremental compilation is when the compiler automatically figures out what needs to be recompiled". He also says that merely using the separate files to deduce this (which the parent says is what Delphi does) is not incremental compilation.
- Manishearth 10y agoIt doesn't "merely use the separate files", it traverses the use statements. There's no manual splitting of .cpp and .h files. No manual management of dependencies.
- barrkel 10y agoRust is going down the path where recompilation is done on a finer granularity than files. I was objecting to setting that as the bar to meet for incremental compilation. It's technically impressive, but it will only be a win if the average compilation unit takes a noticeable amount of time to compile (this was rarely the case with Delphi). It may well be the case for Rust+LLVM.
- Manishearth 10y agoFair. I think Delphi counts, and I don't think that was the bar being set (but it's easy to see how it could be read that way). The C++ header file model is quite different in the amount of burden placed on the programmer over the Delphi use-statement model.