comparison with "edit and continue"

[Trass3r]

How does it compare to /ZI?
Implementation details, performance, limitations.
Would be good to add that to the readme.

[Trass3r]

About EnC limitations: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vcblog/2016/07/01/c-edit-and-continue-in-visual-studio-2015-update-3/

Requires /Gy + /INCREMENTAL and is incompatible with /OPT:* and custom compilers.

[crosire]

Technically blink makes use of a lot of the information provided by /ZI. So there are silimarities. But this projected started back when EnC was still much more limited (it improved a lot in the last couple of years). I haven't compared in a while.
On the points you mentioned: blink doesn't need /Gm or /INCREMENTAL. It also works with optimizations enabled (although this could potentially cause some weird behavior because of inlining).
blink will attempt to use whatever compiler was used to compile the target application. If it fails to detect that it will instead fall back to executing the first cl.exe that is in PATH.

[Trass3r]

I guess it's still true that EnC uses extra padding to replace functions "in-place" in contrast to your approach of putting them in new memory and redirecting the old ones?