I knew that name looked familiar, I thought about mentioning tpde here :)
That's interesting to hear that IR is missing a lot. I'm also surprised that it could provide much gain over hashing the preprocessed output - maybe my workflow is different from others, but typically a change to the preprocessed output implies a change to the IR (e.g., it's a functional change and not just a variable name change or something). Otherwise, why would I recompile it?
Parse caching does sound interesting. Also, a lot of stuff that makes its way into the preprocessed output doesn't end up getting used (perhaps related to the 40-50% figure you gave). Lazy parsing could be helpful - just search for structural chars, to determine entity start/stop ranges, and add the names to a set, then do parsing lazily
> but typically a change to the preprocessed output implies a change to the IR (e.g., it's a functional change and not just a variable name change or something). Otherwise, why would I recompile it?
For C++, this could happen more often, e.g. when changing the implementation of an inline function or a non-instantiated template in a header that is not used in the compilation unit.
That's interesting to hear that IR is missing a lot. I'm also surprised that it could provide much gain over hashing the preprocessed output - maybe my workflow is different from others, but typically a change to the preprocessed output implies a change to the IR (e.g., it's a functional change and not just a variable name change or something). Otherwise, why would I recompile it?
Parse caching does sound interesting. Also, a lot of stuff that makes its way into the preprocessed output doesn't end up getting used (perhaps related to the 40-50% figure you gave). Lazy parsing could be helpful - just search for structural chars, to determine entity start/stop ranges, and add the names to a set, then do parsing lazily