On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 09:17:21 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>
> I never had issues with VisualD so far. Which version of VisualStudio do you have installed?
>
> 64-bit compilation for DMD also works for me for VisualD, as well as when using DUB from the "VS20xx x64 Native Tools Command Prompt" (xx=13 or 15) with the "-a x86_64" switch.

I don't really even like Visual Studio. I'm not going to make any extra effort to get something working with it. If it worked easily (like with me spending less than 10 min trying to get it work), then I might have played around with VisualD.

On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 09:10:43 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> On Monday, 27 July 2015 at 17:12:49 UTC, Joseph Cassman wrote:
>> I can understand that. But releases tend to be several months away. And not just two. So this is a bit frustrating.
>
> We're trying to get to a 2 month interval, and delaying work that doesn't meet the deadlines is necessary to achieve this.
> I hope that with a more regular interval people will be more aware of the next release and plan their work accordingly.

That would be awesome. Thanks for your work toward that goal.

Joseph

On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 09:30:38 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> On Monday, 27 July 2015 at 18:58:33 UTC, Joseph Cassman wrote:
>> Sorry for the following rant but I am frustrated by the poor quality of support for Windows 64 development.
>
> Try http://rainers.github.io/visuald/visuald/StartPage.html.
>
>> By way of comparison, I can download other languages and run their installer. After that everything just works: linker included. Why do I have to install a MS toolchain just to get 64-bit linking for DMD?
>
> What languages and what linkers are they using?
>
>> I like D a lot. I have been using it for a while. But I have always had trouble with Win64 development. I need that platform for my work. But I will have to dev on Linux again just for 64-bit support. And hope that this can finally get fixed. Although I am real close to just walking away on this one.

Thanks for the pointer. I took a look. I could be wrong but it seems it is geared toward using D in VS. This is a little different than my use-case. I use D with a text editor and the console. So I am just looking for a 64-bit linker. I was forced to install VS to get one since for some reason the 7A and 8.1 Windows SDK's did not install a complete 64-bit toolchain for me.

Yeah, I used the Windows D installer after the toolchain was in-place. So I figured the sc.ini should have been automatically set.

Your next post is more to the point of what I am trying to do. I'll try out a redux on the path I took to install to give more clarity. It'll take a while since I have to uninstall VS2015.

Appreciate the feedback.

Joseph

On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 09:43:00 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> On Monday, 27 July 2015 at 18:58:33 UTC, Joseph Cassman wrote:
>> I just wasted a lot of time again trying to get Win64 set up on a machine I had to wipe. I had it working for 2.067.1 somehow but was never able to duplicate that on other machines I have. The information at [1] is outdated. Neither the Windows 7 nor 8.1 SDK install a linker for me now for some reason. I had to install VS 2015 to get a 64-bit linker. This fixed the linker not found post installation issue. But then I got a LIBCMT.lib not found issue. I copied it and other library files to the D installation lib64 subdirectory (I couldn't figure out what to modify in the sc.ini file; tried various modifications). Now I am getting a cryptic LNK4229 error that makes no sense to me. At this point I quit.
>
> Depending on Microsoft's libc and linker for 64-bit is an unfortunate dependency and can cause some hassle. An alternative would be appreciated, but I'm not aware of any.
> There is some code in the installer, that detects your SDK, but if you installed it after dmd it won't work. Isn't there some feedback about SDKs during installation?

There is probably an obvious reason this is not possible but I could not see it when reading through the MS licensing information. It seems to me the linker bin could be redistributed. Why is it (and the other required lib/dll files) not bundled with the Windows installer to make it one-stop-shopping?

Seems like this is what is done with Win32.

Joseph

On Wednesday, 29 July 2015 at 01:52:34 UTC, Joseph Cassman wrote:
> I was forced to install VS to get one since for some reason the 7A and 8.1 Windows SDK's did not install a complete 64-bit toolchain for me.

Seems like Microsoft dropped the compiler from the SDK.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/hh852363.aspx

On Wednesday, 29 July 2015 at 01:55:35 UTC, Joseph Cassman wrote:
> There is probably an obvious reason this is not possible but I could not see it when reading through the MS licensing information. It seems to me the linker bin could be redistributed. Why is it (and the other required lib/dll files) not bundled with the Windows installer to make it one-stop-shopping?
>
> Seems like this is what is done with Win32.

You're not allowed to redistribute the VS binaries, only the libc dlls.
On Win32 we use our own libc (dmc) and linker (optlink).
We could improve our installer so it can optionally start the VS compiler installation.

On Wednesday, 29 July 2015 at 07:10:13 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> You're not allowed to redistribute the VS binaries, only the libc dlls.
> On Win32 we use our own libc (dmc) and linker (optlink).
> We could improve our installer so it can optionally start the VS compiler installation.

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14847

On 2015-07-26 15:55, Martin Nowak wrote:

> BTW, I'd like to phase out the fat 50-60MB combined zip, and add
> tar.xz/gz for linux/freebsd/osx.
> Does anyone still rely on the combined zip?

I noticed building the installer for OS X relies on that as well.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Wednesday, 29 July 2015 at 01:55:35 UTC, Joseph Cassman wrote:
> There is probably an obvious reason this is not possible but I could not see it when reading through the MS licensing information. It seems to me the linker bin could be redistributed.

> 9. SCOPE OF LICENSE. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights.

So you should find an expressly granted right to redistribute.

On Wednesday, 29 July 2015 at 07:10:13 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
>
> You're not allowed to redistribute the VS binaries, only the libc dlls.
> On Win32 we use our own libc (dmc) and linker (optlink).
> We could improve our installer so it can optionally start the VS compiler installation.

If it only installed the required things, then that might be good. The whole thing though...last time I tried to install VS it took like an hour.