On 8 March 2012 15:55, Daniel Murphy <yebblies@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
"Manu" <turkeyman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.223.1331197934.4860.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
On 8 March 2012 00:21, Jonathan M Davis <
jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote:
> Is it possible to just fix the compiler to output COFF objects *without*
> touching optlink at all?
> I'm not interested in using optlink with this feature, I intend to link
> with Visual Studio, that's the whole point. So ignoring optlink, that's a
> major slice of work taken out of the equation...
> Maybe it would be nice to support optlink in future, but it seems the
> priority is backwards.
Yes, it is, but then you still won't be able to link omf and coff object
files/libraries together, meaning you need a coff version of
druntime/phobos/any other d libraries, and you can't use the c runtime made
by dmc etc.
That's fine, I would use the mscrt (required to link with all the rest of my code anyway), and as soon as the feature is available, you can bet your boots that OMF will cease to exist in windows library distributions instantly.
When was the last time you saw a closed-source windows library ship with .a files? Windows library distributions would be VC compatible COFF objects within days.
Ideally everything would work together, and with a tool that can be bundled
with D.
Optlink is bundled with D, I presume OMF would remain an option as a standalone 'complete package', but realistically, I don't think virtually any windows users would use it once they can link with VS.
The kind of Windows user that might use OMF+optlink is the same kind of user that would be perfectly happy, maybe even prefer to use GDC/LDC.