On Saturday, 28 October 2017 at 03:00:16 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Saturday, October 28, 2017 02:48:00 evilrat via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Saturday, 28 October 2017 at 02:30:50 UTC, codephantom wrote:
>> > On Saturday, 28 October 2017 at 01:42:52 UTC, evilrat wrote:
>> >> Since you already on that wave, can you test Windows SDK installation and make DMD's sc.ini use the SDK?
>> >
>> > nope. not me. I've had enough ;-)
>> >
>> > I use FreeBSD.
>> >
>> > I just wanted so see what effort I had to undertake to compile D into a 64bit binary on Windows - presuming I didn't want visual studio too...
>> >
>> > Needless to say...I'm not impressed. And I'll leave it at that.
>>
>> No problem. Actually there is a recent post in blog about D and VS where WinSDK is mentioned, might be interested to read - https://dlang.org/blog/2017/10/25/dmd-windows-and-c/
>>
>>
>> Some clarifications - VS projects(at least MS one's, i.e. C++ and
>> C#) are just xml 'build scripts' for msbuild.exe, which itself
>> don't have the knowledge about project or how to build them, it
>> is plugins that provides such knowledge to it. So in this sense
>> VS project properties editor is just a nice UI for editing build
>> scripts. And when one hit the build button in VS it is just
>> invokes msbuild with that script(project file). That's why we
>> have WinSDK, MSBuild tools, and VS as separate downloads, and VS
>> includes the former two.
>> More or less like that. This might be helpful for some users.
>
> At a previous job where we had both Linux and Windows builds of our libraries (though applications themselves tended to be single platform), I got so sick of dealing with VS and the builds not being consistent across platforms (since Linux used Makefiles, and those obviously had to be edited separately from the VS stuff) that I rewrote our build stuff so that it was all generated with cmake. Then editing the build was the same on both platforms, and building was _almost_ the same. I didn't even need to open up VS anymore - for configuration or for building. It was glorious.
>
> I expect that it's the sort of thing that would annoy many Windows devs though, because the fact that the VS files were generated meant that you couldn't make changes in VS and have it stick (which from my perspective was great, but for a hardcore Windows person, probably not so much).
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

Visual Studio 2017 has native support for cmake as project format.

It is also the new official format for Android NDK development.

So we are quite ok with using cmake. :)

On Saturday, October 28, 2017 07:12:13 Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Visual Studio 2017 has native support for cmake as project format.
>
> It is also the new official format for Android NDK development.
>
> So we are quite ok with using cmake. :)

That definitely sounds like an improvement.

The place I was working at before is still on VS 2010. :|

- Jonathan M Davis

On Thursday, 26 October 2017 at 20:44:49 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
> The XCode installer DMG is 5GB, before unpacking. And unlike VS17, I can't pick and choose. :)

btw. (and I do realise we've gone way of the topic of this original thread)...but...

if it interests anyone, this is the outcome of yesterday, where I wasted my whole day trying to get DMD to compile a 64bit .exe on a fresh install of Windows 7.

(and ..I had to muck around with service packs, and .NET frameworks and stuff before hand too).

It's the *minimum* 'selection set' you'll need (with regards to the Visual Studio Build Tools 2017) in order to get DMD to sucessfully compile a 64bit exe (-m64)

Now to be fair, this is assuming you **don't** want and **don't** have VS installed, but just want the necessary 'build tools' so that DMD can build a *64bit* binary on Windows - (in total about 3.5GB).


Code tools
	Static analysis tools

Compilers, build tools, and runtimes
	VC++ 2017 v141 toolset (x86,x64)

SDK's, libraries and frameworks
	Windows 10 SDK (10.0.16299.0) for Desktop C++ [x86 and x64]
	Windows 10 SDK (10.0.16299.0) for UWP: C#, VB, JS
	Windows 10 SDK (10.0.16299.0) for UWP: C++

On Friday, 27 October 2017 at 16:05:10 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> With this the only missing piece will be the C startup code (mainCRTStartup in crtexe.c), though not sure where it's compiled.

How do I get lld-link to link .obj files?
Clang itself emits .o files, and those link successfully.
For .obj files
>./lld-link test.obj
error: test.obj: The file was not recognized as a valid object file

On 2017-10-28 08:11, Brad Roberts wrote:

> The issues weren't compiling dmd but passing the full test suite. Both are required.

Yes, I've run the test suite as well, DMD, druntime and Phobos.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Saturday, 28 October 2017 at 09:20:40 UTC, MrSmith wrote:
> error: test.obj: The file was not recognized as a valid object file

Ah, forgot to pass -m64 to dmd

On Saturday, 28 October 2017 at 00:05:53 UTC, codephantom wrote:
> Rubbish!
>
> And get you facts straight!
>
> Where did I advocate from the removal of the ability for D to generate 64-bit binaries?

So you are saying to not use the platform's tools to generate binaries. That's like saying not to the use linux's tools to generate binaries on that platform and instead D should build it's own tools in order to be able to. D has a small enough community as it is, it isn't capable of developing such tools. You are advocating for the removal of the only way to currently genreate 64-bit binaries in D. The only other solution is mingw, and honestly those tools aren't nearly as polished as one run by a company with almost limitless resources. If you don't want to deal with Visual Studio, I'll deal you one better, why are you bothering to deal with Windows at all? If you don't like Microsoft so much just switch to Linux, there your problem is solved. You can't even install Visual Studio on Linux.

> At a minimum, I had to download 3.5GB of VS build tools just so I could compile a 64 bit D program (and it took me almost a whole day to work out the correct process).

It's really not that difficult, you install it and it pretty much just works. The only problem case is if you install D before you install Visual Studio.

Wow 3.5 GB, that's so much! If only there were TB HDDs at an affordable price, oh god why does it have to be so big to install! Anyways maybe I just don't see it as a problem cause I have to download much much bigger files. Good thing you don't play games cause they are getting into the 80 GB range nowadays.

> Is is it problem that D should accept, and just impose on it's users?
>
> Or should D find a better way?
>
> Which is the worse mentality?

Your on the Windows platform, not support Windows tools is annoying and you aren't going to find better tools. If you don't like the way Microsoft does business, you have 2 other platforms you can go to. Buy a Mac or boot up Linux. Just stop making Windows a worse platform by suggesting to drop support for the official development tools.

There is no "better way". Every other way is going to be worse cause Windows doesn't have as big of a community dabbling in building tools like GCC and Clang for Windows. Why? Cause there's Visual Studio. Like I said, ideals are nice and all but people still need to get shit done. That's what your argument boils down to, the ideal of finding a better way than what is currently available. The problem is you aren't even suggestion a better way, you are just trying to sell it on the false belief that there is something better. But there isn't. This is worse than religion..

Why don't you like VS, cause they changed something? Rofl, whenever there is change people hate it. Cause people don't like change, for the only reason that they don't want to learn something new. I don't know how many times I teach someone a hotkey that's way better than their current method and they just keep going with their horribly slow method cause that's what they know. And download size? I could say why are you even on Windows, Linux is like 20 GB smaller download size and takes up less HDD space than Windows. So why the hell are you even on Windows? Oh yah once you install it you don't have to worry about it for years on end. You want to drop support for VS cause of something you spend once doing and then pretty much never have to do again for years to come. Please no, just switch to Linux and let the people that actually need to use the Windows platform, use it effectively.

On Saturday, 28 October 2017 at 00:05:53 UTC, codephantom wrote:
> Is is it problem that D should accept, and just impose on it's users?
>
> Or should D find a better way?
>
> Which is the worse mentality?

There is an afterlife with god.
There is nothingness after death.

Which is the worse mentality?

Yet why is it that the more educated someone is, the more likely they are to be atheist?

On Saturday, 28 October 2017 at 07:39:21 UTC, codephantom wrote:
> btw. (and I do realise we've gone way of the topic of this original thread)...but...
>
> if it interests anyone, this is the outcome of yesterday, where I wasted my whole day trying to get DMD to compile a 64bit .exe on a fresh install of Windows 7.

Your own incompetence isn't reason enough for everyone else to suffer. I've never had a problem installing Visual Studio, or getting D to work with it.

On Saturday, 28 October 2017 at 14:00:14 UTC, Jerry wrote:
> On Saturday, 28 October 2017 at 07:39:21 UTC, codephantom wrote:
>> btw. (and I do realise we've gone way of the topic of this original thread)...but...
>>
>> if it interests anyone, this is the outcome of yesterday, where I wasted my whole day trying to get DMD to compile a 64bit .exe on a fresh install of Windows 7.
>
> Your own incompetence isn't reason enough for everyone else to suffer. I've never had a problem installing Visual Studio, or getting D to work with it.

Nice one Jerry.

You're so eager to have a go at me, that you completely missed the point.

I explicitly mentioned that I did *******NOT******* want VS installed.

All I wanted, was to build a 64bit D binary, and wanted to know what was the minimum components I had to install in order to be able to do that.

I had just wanted VS. I would have just installed that.

The majority of time spent was downloading the damn thing!

Go trawl somewhere else!