March 07, 2012
On 2012-03-07 01:47, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 06, 2012 11:31:40 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2012-03-06 08:56, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 06, 2012 08:29:53 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>>> On 2012-03-06 02:21, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, March 06, 2012 01:53:02 Zach the Mystic wrote:
>>>>>> Reading the documentation about compiler options and flags here:
>>>>>> http://dlang.org/dmd-osx.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> led me to believe that building libraries was the right way to do
>>>>>> incremental compilation. But I thought, well, can I just build
>>>>>> file1.o object files instead?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I've started doing that and I've got no problems so far. I
>>>>>> guess I don't need all that fancy .lib and -L-lmyLib stuff after
>>>>>> all. You can pack all sorts of stuff into a file1.o file instead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess I solved my problem for now. Hopefully I'm making sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Libraries are not intented for incremental compilation. They are for
>>>>> distributing code in a unit which can be used by programs. And in the
>>>>> case
>>>>> of a shared library, it gives the added benefit of reducing the amount
>>>>> of
>>>>> duplicate code you get in binaries (saving both memory and disk space).
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to do incremental compilation, then use -c to generate
>>>>> object
>>>>> files that you link together when you create the actual executable.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Jonathan M Davis
>>>>
>>>> Actually the -lib switch might be the answer to one of the incremental
>>>> compilation problems DMD suffers from. That DMD usually does not output
>>>> all symbols to all object files which can result in missing symbols when
>>>> doing incremental compilation. I've heard that the when using the -lib
>>>> flag DMD will output all symbols to all object files.
>>>
>>> If so, it's an implementation issue. In principle, libraries have nothing
>>> to do with incremental compilation. They're about modularizing code for
>>> reusability.
>>>
>>> - Jonathan M Davis
>>
>> Yes, but Walter doesn't seem to want to fix that issue.
>
> Well, from the sounds of it, he's going to need to be convinced one way or
> another - which can be frustratingly difficult at times. Sometimes, he's right
> even when pretty much no one agrees with him, but other times, he just doesn't
> seem to get it. He's hard to convince in either case though.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

If I recall correctly, he mentioned some issues with COMDAT. Here is the full discussion:

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Incremental_compilation_with_DMD_96138.html

Mentions something about COMDAT: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Incremental_compilation_with_DMD_96138.html#N96197

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
March 07, 2012
On Tuesday, 6 March 2012 at 07:29:54 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> Actually the -lib switch might be the answer to one of the incremental compilation problems DMD suffers from. That DMD usually does not output all symbols to all object files which can result in missing symbols when doing incremental compilation. I've heard that the when using the -lib flag DMD will output all symbols to all object files.

Hey you know, this could also be a problem because of my original post. Instead of missing symbols, with -lib, you could start to suffer from unintended duplicates, too.


Next ›   Last »
1 2
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home