This is the first post on my new blog https://code.dawg.eu/.
It starts with a 3 part series on reducing vibe.d turnaround times during development.

https://code.dawg.eu/reducing-vibed-turnaround-time-part-1-faster-linking.html

There is also a friendly comment system.

On Thursday, 30 October 2014 at 01:02:40 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> This is the first post on my new blog https://code.dawg.eu/.
> It starts with a 3 part series on reducing vibe.d turnaround times during development.
>
> https://code.dawg.eu/reducing-vibed-turnaround-time-part-1-faster-linking.html
>
> There is also a friendly comment system.

I've been using gold for years but still find the linking time for a vibe.d project to be a bit too long. I never did profile the build though.

Atila

Also I think you are mistaking where the <<< >>> are actually
used. The <<< >>> are used in CUDA code, not in C++ code. While
CUDA is a variation on C++, it is still not C++ and has to pass
through a special parser that splits out the host code and the
gpu code to be compiled.

__________
adil

On Thursday, 30 October 2014 at 01:02:40 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> https://code.dawg.eu/reducing-vibed-turnaround-time-part-1-faster-linking.html

Could you add a reference on how to DUB-build a library as dynamic instead of static library to easy the process for newcomers?

On 11/01/2014 10:02 PM, "Nordlöw" wrote:
>
> Could you add a reference on how to DUB-build a library as dynamic
> instead of static library to easy the process for newcomers?

Not really, as I said in the article.

> Shared libraries are still a bit cumbersome to use with dub though.

Basically I just used dub -v to pick up the compile commands and exchanged -lib with -fPIC -shared.

I think you can also change vibe.d's dub.json to use targetType: dynamicLibrary and also add -fPIC there. Then you'd still need to change your LD_LIBRARY_PATH. This should all be integrated into dub at once we move forward with shared libraries.

On Friday, 31 October 2014 at 09:51:09 UTC, nomi wrote:
Also I think you are mistaking where the <<< >>> are actually>
used. Theare used in CUDA code, not in C++ code. While
CUDA is a variation on C++, it is still not C++ and has to pass
through a special parser that splits out the host code and the
gpu code to be compiled.


  __________
We offer guaranteed success for
[url=http://www.braindumps.com/C4090-958.htm]Braindumps[/url]
with help of latest  [url=http://www.avaya.com/usa/]Avaya[/url]
latest resource
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Advancing_Technology]University
of Advancing Technology[/url] certification dumps certification
[url=http://web.mit.edu/]Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT)[/url] paced test engine to help you pass
[url=http://www.nova.edu/]Nova Southeastern University[/url]

On Thursday, 27 November 2014 at 08:47:32 UTC, nomi wrote:
> On Friday, 31 October 2014 at 09:51:09 UTC, nomi wrote:
> Also I think you are mistaking where the <<< >>> are actually>
> used. Theare used in CUDA code, not in C++ code. While
> CUDA is a variation on C++, it is still not C++ and has to pass
> through a special parser that splits out the host code and the
> gpu code to be compiled.
>