John Reimer wrote:
> Otherwise, given all the problems a person can have developing on win32
> (specifically while trying to work with old object formats), I'd
> suggest moving to a unix type operating system instead where these kind of
> problems don't exist.  Since the latter is not a practical solution, you
> can also just use mingw -- not the best solution, but at least it's well
> supported, and uses /a/ coff format.

One thing that Microsoft does is keep changing their omf format. It's a full time job just keeping up with that, that's why I gave it up. If I ever do update the entire omf toolchain, it'll be to ELF/Dwarf format, not because I like them (they are overly complicated) but because being ubiquitous on Linux it reduces my workload.

> PS. I speak as one who bought the Digitalmars C/C++ compiler suite from
> Walter a few years ago.  I have no complaints about the quality of
> software, other than the feeling that some things are outdated.

Some of the things are outdated. Before I got it, it was developed by a small army of very competent people. A few individuals, like Andrew Bushnell, who were former developers on it have helped me out with it, but it's largely been my own efforts on it, and I try to do what's most effective with my resources.

Walter Bright wrote:
> One thing that Microsoft does is keep changing their omf format. It's a full time job just keeping up with that, that's why I gave it up. If I ever do update the entire omf toolchain, it'll be to ELF/Dwarf format, not because I like them (they are overly complicated) but because being ubiquitous on Linux it reduces my workload.

Here's a random idea. Why not update the toolchain to support the COFF format that MinGW uses? Not Microsoft's, not Borland's. Lots of libraries support directly MinGW and it would help us a bit interfacing D code with C or even C++.

Of course the incompatibilities between the different libc and loaders will still be problems but those are workable if source is available.

What do you think, Walter? It's still too much work and not enough gain?

Thanks

"Walter Bright" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:erqm3h$2a3$1@digitalmars.com...
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>> Or if it is then maybe Walter should provide a web-based coff2omf service.  $2 a pop, and if it doesn't work you don't pay.  Or something like that.  I might give that a try.  :-)
>
> It's only $15. And I've been known to give refunds to people it didn't work for, even though I think each of the utilities in the EUP are easily worth $15 by themselves. OBJ2ASM in particular!

Why is that free with the Linux distro, though?  :(

"Julio César Carrascal Urquijo" <jcesar@phreaker.net> wrote in message news:erqs78$11vb$1@digitalmars.com...
>
> Here's a random idea. Why not update the toolchain to support the COFF format that MinGW uses? Not Microsoft's, not Borland's. Lots of libraries support directly MinGW and it would help us a bit interfacing D code with C or even C++.

I'd really like that.  It would mean that D would be interoperable with gcc in all platforms.  That's a good standard to follow.  That, and just about anything would be better and more commonly supported than OMF.

Walter Bright wrote:
> 
> It's only $15. And I've been known to give refunds to people it didn't work for, even though I think each of the utilities in the EUP are easily worth $15 by themselves. OBJ2ASM in particular!

I'd agree with that.


Sean

John Reimer wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:43:31 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
> 
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>> Or if it is then maybe Walter should provide a web-based coff2omf service.  $2 a pop, and if it doesn't work you don't pay.  Or something like that.  I might give that a try.  :-)
>> It's only $15. And I've been known to give refunds to people it didn't work for, even though I think each of the utilities in the EUP are easily worth $15 by themselves. OBJ2ASM in particular!
> 
> 
> Personally, I would say that if a person finds it important to get
> a library working with dmc/dmd, then it's worth investing in the
> digitalmars tools to give it a shot -- specifically the whole dmc compiler
> suite which is reasonably priced.

It certainly is.  The only other compiler I know of with a comparable price is Coumeau, and Coumeau is a C-front compiler.

> PS. I speak as one who bought the Digitalmars C/C++ compiler suite from
> Walter a few years ago.  I have no complaints about the quality of
> software, other than the feeling that some things are outdated.

I've got a CD as well, and I use DMC now for everything that doesn't require serious debugging (for that, I still use VC 2005).  If DMC had a quality debugger available, I'd need nothing else on Windows.


Sean

Sean Kelly wrote:
> I've got a CD as well, and I use DMC now for everything that doesn't require serious debugging (for that, I still use VC 2005).  If DMC had a quality debugger available, I'd need nothing else on Windows.

You could try using DDbg.  Although it's intended for use with D code, it should also support C code that has CodeView debugging information (such as that generated by DMC).  You can also use it with the CodeBlocks IDE with the GDB emulation frontend.

Julio César Carrascal Urquijo wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> One thing that Microsoft does is keep changing their omf format. It's a full time job just keeping up with that, that's why I gave it up. If I ever do update the entire omf toolchain, it'll be to ELF/Dwarf format, not because I like them (they are overly complicated) but because being ubiquitous on Linux it reduces my workload.
> 
> Here's a random idea. Why not update the toolchain to support the COFF format that MinGW uses? Not Microsoft's, not Borland's. Lots of libraries support directly MinGW and it would help us a bit interfacing D code with C or even C++.
> 
> Of course the incompatibilities between the different libc and loaders will still be problems but those are workable if source is available.
> 
> What do you think, Walter? It's still too much work and not enough gain?

Since I have to support Elf anyway, it still leaves me supporting two formats.

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 21:27:38 -0500, Julio César Carrascal Urquijo wrote:

> Walter Bright wrote:
>> One thing that Microsoft does is keep changing their omf format. It's a full time job just keeping up with that, that's why I gave it up. If I ever do update the entire omf toolchain, it'll be to ELF/Dwarf format, not because I like them (they are overly complicated) but because being ubiquitous on Linux it reduces my workload.
> 
> Here's a random idea. Why not update the toolchain to support the COFF format that MinGW uses? Not Microsoft's, not Borland's. Lots of libraries support directly MinGW and it would help us a bit interfacing D code with C or even C++.
> 
> Of course the incompatibilities between the different libc and loaders will still be problems but those are workable if source is available.
> 
> What do you think, Walter? It's still too much work and not enough gain?
> 
> Thanks


Yes, this is what was practically suggested concerning updating the dmd tools in another thread.  Mingw, at least, seems to be the next major player in a myriad of win32 projects.  Following mingw would be the best, (and only, in my opinion) way of attempting to implement a coff format for a toolset.  But then, for Walter, this may return to the problem of IP tainting, which continues to be a thoroughly disappointing problem. Hesitation in that area keeps driving home why having an opensource frontend is insufficient.  Mingw GDC, naturally, is the next best thing since it supplies us with the opportunity to use all the necessary tools inherited from mingw.

Nonetheless, I really wish dmd and dmc internals were updated to interact fully with the mingw toolset.  The library support there seems so expansive (most opensource projects these days seem to support both Mingw and MS VC++).

-JJR

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 22:31:12 -0600, Tyler Knott wrote:

> Sean Kelly wrote:
>> I've got a CD as well, and I use DMC now for everything that doesn't require serious debugging (for that, I still use VC 2005).  If DMC had a quality debugger available, I'd need nothing else on Windows.
> 
> You could try using DDbg.  Although it's intended for use with D code, it should also support C code that has CodeView debugging information (such as that generated by DMC).  You can also use it with the CodeBlocks IDE with the GDB emulation frontend.


On a side note, I decided to try CodeBlocks again and was very surpised at the beauty of it.  Looks like D found itself a place within a promising IDE. Wow!  I think I've found my D IDE for windows.

Now all they need to do is get the Linux version up to date and
we'll have one impressive cross-platform D IDE.  Add to that the new DDbg
and everything is set (no DDbg for linux, though, sadly).

-JJR