When trying to add a --disable-libphobos switch to GCC I saw that GCC already has code that makes it possible to --disable any target library, although I think this is not documented in the configure --help output.

Anyway, this means configure --disable-libphobos works fine and builds a gdc without phobos. Obviously object.di isn't installed then and this error pops up when trying to compile something:

object.d: Error: module object is in file 'object.d' which cannot be read

However, for C-like code a completely empty object.di works fine, so could we disable the object.di detection when -nostdlib or -nophoboslib is passed, or at least make it a warning instead of an error?

Or add a new switch to ignore a missing object.di? It just doesn't seem to make sense, that object.di must be there, but can be completely empty.

On 10 February 2012 10:36, Johannes Pfau <nospam@example.com> wrote:
> When trying to add a --disable-libphobos switch to GCC I saw that GCC already has code that makes it possible to --disable any target library, although I think this is not documented in the configure --help output.
>
> Anyway, this means configure --disable-libphobos works fine and builds a gdc without phobos. Obviously object.di isn't installed then and this error pops up when trying to compile something:
>
> object.d: Error: module object is in file 'object.d' which cannot be read
>
> However, for C-like code a completely empty object.di works fine, so could we disable the object.di detection when -nostdlib or -nophoboslib is passed, or at least make it a warning instead of an error?
>
> Or add a new switch to ignore a missing object.di? It just doesn't seem to make sense, that object.di must be there, but can be completely empty.

object.[d, di] is special to the compiler, I think it would be best to _always_ ship it, or have it separate from being directly under the usual /usr/include directories for the standard library.

-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';

Am Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:12:11 +0000
schrieb Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@ubuntu.com>:

> On 10 February 2012 10:36, Johannes Pfau <nospam@example.com> wrote:
> > When trying to add a --disable-libphobos switch to GCC I saw that GCC already has code that makes it possible to --disable any target library, although I think this is not documented in the configure --help output.
> >
> > Anyway, this means configure --disable-libphobos works fine and builds a gdc without phobos. Obviously object.di isn't installed then and this error pops up when trying to compile something:
> >
> > object.d: Error: module object is in file 'object.d' which cannot be read
> >
> > However, for C-like code a completely empty object.di works fine, so could we disable the object.di detection when -nostdlib or -nophoboslib is passed, or at least make it a warning instead of an error?
> >
> > Or add a new switch to ignore a missing object.di? It just doesn't seem to make sense, that object.di must be there, but can be completely empty.
> 
> object.[d, di] is special to the compiler, I think it would be best to _always_ ship it, or have it separate from being directly under the usual /usr/include directories for the standard library.
> 

Yep, anything 'class' related won't work without object.di and probably much more. But to make a app using those features link, object_.d needs to be compiled in as well, and that pulls in some druntime dependencies (not too many), so to ship a minimal working object.di we'd also have to ship a minimal 'runtime' library. I'm not sure what's the right decision here, but it'd be great if could make a minimal compiler work for C-like code with minimal dependencies (one object.di file shipped by default definitely counts as minimal dependencies though).

Am Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:36:22 +0100
schrieb Johannes Pfau <nospam@example.com>:

> Yep, anything 'class' related won't work without object.di and probably much more. But to make a app using those features link, object_.d needs to be compiled in as well, and that pulls in some druntime dependencies (not too many), so to ship a minimal working object.di we'd also have to ship a minimal 'runtime' library. I'm not sure what's the right decision here, but it'd be great if could make a minimal compiler work for C-like code with minimal dependencies (one object.di file shipped by default definitely counts as minimal dependencies though).

I guess we should just keep everything as it is. A minimal runtime seems too much effort right now and for testing very basic functionality it's always possible to create an empty object.di.

On 13 February 2012 17:55, Johannes Pfau <nospam@example.com> wrote:
> Am Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:36:22 +0100
> schrieb Johannes Pfau <nospam@example.com>:
>
>> Yep, anything 'class' related won't work without object.di and probably much more. But to make a app using those features link, object_.d needs to be compiled in as well, and that pulls in some druntime dependencies (not too many), so to ship a minimal working object.di we'd also have to ship a minimal 'runtime' library. I'm not sure what's the right decision here, but it'd be great if could make a minimal compiler work for C-like code with minimal dependencies (one object.di file shipped by default definitely counts as minimal dependencies though).
>
> I guess we should just keep everything as it is. A minimal runtime seems too much effort right now and for testing very basic functionality it's always possible to create an empty object.di.

I think --disable-libphobos would go hand in hand with some sort of --default-gdc-lib=FOO.  FOO being the default library the driver attempts to link to.   This would be for people who have their own substitute for libphobos, be it a mini druntime, tango, or other bespoke library.

However the constant should always be that object.di is always shipped, and the compiler *always* depends on that.


Regards

-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';