Hi,

ldc2 has the -unittest --main options to compile a file that has unittests and no main so as to create a test executable. What causes the same behaviour with gdc?

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

Am Sun, 12 Mar 2017 12:09:01 +0000
schrieb Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-learn
<digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com>:

> Hi,
> 
> ldc2 has the -unittest --main options to compile a file that has unittests and no main so as to create a test executable. What causes the same behaviour with gdc?
> 

https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDMD/tree/dport

gdmd -unittest --main

The unittest flag for GDC is -funittest but there's no flag to generate a main function. gdmd generates a temporary file with a main function to implement this.

-- Johannes

On Sun, 2017-03-12 at 16:38 +0100, Johannes Pfau via Digitalmars-d- learn wrote:
> 
[…]
> 
> https://github.com/D-Programming-GDC/GDMD/tree/dport
> 
> gdmd -unittest --main
> 
> The unittest flag for GDC is -funittest but there's no flag to
> generate
> a main function. gdmd generates a temporary file with a main function
> to implement this.

gdmd is not packaged with gdc so isn't a general solution. gdmd, like rdmd, should be packaged.

Having dmd, ldc, and gdc have different command lines is really ####### awkward when using SCons and Meson. It is a shame that dmd and ldc do not just use the standard GCC option set.

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

On Monday, 13 March 2017 at 11:06:53 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> It is a shame that dmd and ldc do not just use the standard GCC option set.
Totally agreed.

Moreover, funny stuff like "dmd -of<Target>" (instead of standard "-o <target>") breaks automatic Msys path conversion hack (the code translates Unix paths from the command line to Windows paths before the invocation of a non-msys program), which makes it impossible to use dmd under Msys without wrapping it first.

pkg-config also is a real pain to use with dmd (the pkg-config's output needs to be post-processed so it has the form "-L-lstuff" instead of "-lstuff").

This is an issue, because it makes it very hard to use write portable makefiles for programs containing D code. Too bad, because the D code is actually platform-independent, and there's been a lot of work in Phobos to make it easy to write such code.

D was designed to be binary compatible with the C ABI ; however, having a compiler whose command-line behaves so different from gcc makes it harder to actually work with existing C libs.

This is actually the main reason why I almost exclusively use gdc: to have one Makefile, for all platforms, allowing native and cross-compilation with no platform-specific special cases.

On Wednesday, 22 March 2017 at 05:47:59 UTC, Sebastien Alaiwan wrote:
> On Monday, 13 March 2017 at 11:06:53 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
>> It is a shame that dmd and ldc do not just use the standard GCC option set.
> Totally agreed.
>
> Moreover, funny stuff like "dmd -of<Target>" (instead of standard "-o <target>") breaks automatic Msys path conversion hack (the code translates Unix paths from the command line to Windows paths before the invocation of a non-msys program), which makes it impossible to use dmd under Msys without wrapping it first.
>
> pkg-config also is a real pain to use with dmd (the pkg-config's output needs to be post-processed so it has the form "-L-lstuff" instead of "-lstuff").
>
> This is an issue, because it makes it very hard to use write portable makefiles for programs containing D code. Too bad, because the D code is actually platform-independent, and there's been a lot of work in Phobos to make it easy to write such code.
>
> D was designed to be binary compatible with the C ABI ; however, having a compiler whose command-line behaves so different from gcc makes it harder to actually work with existing C libs.
>
> This is actually the main reason why I almost exclusively use gdc: to have one Makefile, for all platforms, allowing native and cross-compilation with no platform-specific special cases.

This is why most of my work in Meson to get D supported is adding weird hacks to translate compiler flags between GNU <-> non-GNU <-> DMD. It sucks quite badly, and every now and then I hit a weird corner case where things break.
For example: https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/commit/d9cabe9f0ca6fb06808c1d5cf5206a7c5158517e

Would be amazing if all D compilers would support the GCC flags, like Clang does for C - that would help in removing a lot of hacks (and making Makefiles which work with all compilers).
The reason for not using a dmd wrapper is that one might want to use flags specific to a certain compiler.

On Wednesday, 22 March 2017 at 13:42:21 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> This is why most of my work in Meson to get D supported is adding weird hacks to translate compiler flags between GNU <-> non-GNU <-> DMD. It sucks quite badly, and every now and then I hit a weird corner case where things break.
> For example: https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/commit/d9cabe9f0ca6fb06808c1d5cf5206a7c5158517e

One day, we'll have to decide if we should align build systems on compilers, or the other way around.
In the meantime, could everyone please align on clang and gcc ? :-)

On Monday, 5 June 2017 at 18:22:31 UTC, Sebastien Alaiwan wrote:
> On Wednesday, 22 March 2017 at 13:42:21 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
>> This is why most of my work in Meson to get D supported is adding weird hacks to translate compiler flags between GNU <-> non-GNU <-> DMD. It sucks quite badly, and every now and then I hit a weird corner case where things break.
>> For example: https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/commit/d9cabe9f0ca6fb06808c1d5cf5206a7c5158517e
>
> One day, we'll have to decide if we should align build systems on compilers, or the other way around.
> In the meantime, could everyone please align on clang and gcc ? :-)

We're getting there, slowly. Although its a tight balance between dmd compatibility and gcc/clang compatibility, see -[f]unittest.

https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/pull/2149