3 ms·

Can you point at what you mean? If you changed a function implementation in the libc crate, not changing that function's signature, how much codegen would happ

• panstromek 2mo ago
  This is difficult to answer, because these systems exhibit somewhat chaotic behaviour, and it gets even more complicated cross-crate. I was mostly talking about single crate scenario. Since you mentioned libc, the likely answer is that nothing gets codegened in downstream crates. But this is only because libc functions are usually not generic or `#[inline]`. Changes to generic or inline functions can dirty downstream codegen units where the function was called. Inside `libc`, the change will trigger recompilation of at least one codegen unit, depending on how the function is used inside libc itself. Single crate is split into 256 units in incremental mode. Nevertheless, even if the codegen is needed just for the `libc` crate, `libc` will dirty its metadata, which means that downstream crates will still need to recompile the initial steps before incremental kicks in (which is roughly parsing, macro expansion and name resolution). After that, the query system just returns cached results for all the subsequent steps. There's some work going towards skipping the rustc invocation altogether in those cases (usually referred to as "Relink don't Rebuild" proposal), because even just loading the dependency graph and figuring out that you don't have to do anything can take quite bit of time for larger programs.