View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
February 08, 2006
Build - standard compilation tool ?
A standard GUI and a standard build tool!  I think everyone uses build
already anyway, getting DigitalMars endorsement would save everyone the
effort of saying 'use build its over here ->'.

?
February 08, 2006
Re: Build - standard compilation tool ?
Charles wrote:
> A standard GUI and a standard build tool!  I think everyone uses build
> already anyway, getting DigitalMars endorsement would save everyone the
> effort of saying 'use build its over here ->'.
> 

I second that.
It'd be even better if it came directly with dmd!!
February 08, 2006
Re: Build - standard compilation tool ?
Charles wrote:

> A standard GUI and a standard build tool!  I think everyone uses build
> already anyway, getting DigitalMars endorsement would save everyone the
> effort of saying 'use build its over here ->'.

Build still has some quirks on Mac / with GDC.

i.e. it builds alright, but can't seem to find
the standard library modules without "hints" ?

Maybe it's just me... (so I am using Makefiles)
--anders
February 08, 2006
Re: Build - standard compilation tool ?
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 05:23:48 +1100, Anders F Björklund <afb@algonet.se>  
wrote:

> Charles wrote:
>
>> A standard GUI and a standard build tool!  I think everyone uses build
>> already anyway, getting DigitalMars endorsement would save everyone the
>> effort of saying 'use build its over here ->'.
>
> Build still has some quirks on Mac / with GDC.
>
> i.e. it builds alright, but can't seem to find
> the standard library modules without "hints" ?
>
> Maybe it's just me... (so I am using Makefiles)
> --anders

Can I have some details. I just might be able to help.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
February 08, 2006
Re: Build - standard compilation tool ?
Derek Parnell wrote:

>> i.e. it builds alright, but can't seem to find
>> the standard library modules without "hints" ?
>>
>> Maybe it's just me... (so I am using Makefiles)
> 
> Can I have some details. I just might be able to help.

Maybe I'm just missing some basic setup steps...

The GDC compiler is "/usr/bin/gdmd" just as usual,
and Phobos modules are in /usr/include/d/3.3.6 or
/usr/include/d/4.0.1 (depending on the OS version)

My local D modules are in /usr/include/d, but I
guess those will have to be -I included somehow ?
Been a while since I tried, will post to forum...

(i.e. http://dsource.org/forums/viewforum.php?f=52)

Build working out-of-the-box for gdcmac would be great.
--anders


PS.
It's mostly a "habit" thing. I'm using CVS too. :-)
February 08, 2006
Re: Build - standard compilation tool ?
"Charles" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
news:dsdb37$1vdk$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> A standard GUI and a standard build tool!  I think everyone uses build
> already anyway, getting DigitalMars endorsement would save everyone the
> effort of saying 'use build its over here ->'.

It doesn't work properly with one of my (main) projects, as I do some pretty 
weird compiler cajoling to get it to compile.  So I usually don't use it, 
but it seems like a really cool tool, and perhaps some of its functionality 
should be implemented into the compiler (such as compiling any imported 
modules which aren't just headers).
February 08, 2006
Re: Build - standard compilation tool ?
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 07:56:58 +1100, Jarrett Billingsley  
<kb3ctd2@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Charles" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:dsdb37$1vdk$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>
>> A standard GUI and a standard build tool!  I think everyone uses build
>> already anyway, getting DigitalMars endorsement would save everyone the
>> effort of saying 'use build its over here ->'.
>
> It doesn't work properly with one of my (main) projects, as I do some  
> pretty
> weird compiler cajoling to get it to compile.  So I usually don't use it,
> but it seems like a really cool tool, and perhaps some of its  
> functionality
> should be implemented into the compiler (such as compiling any imported
> modules which aren't just headers).
>

Can I have a crack at it anyway? I'd like to remove any corner cases so  
that Build can be used in more places. What examples of the "weird  
compiler cajoling" can you give me?


BTW, I'm just about to release the next version. I'm currently converting  
the documentation over to DDOC format.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
February 08, 2006
Re: Build - standard compilation tool ?
Hasan Aljudy wrote:
> Charles wrote:
>> A standard GUI and a standard build tool!  I think everyone uses build
>> already anyway, getting DigitalMars endorsement would save everyone the
>> effort of saying 'use build its over here ->'.
>>
> 
> I second that.
> It'd be even better if it came directly with dmd!!

vote++.
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home