June 27, 2008 Re: Bit quiet here [Boost / 64 / linker / BSD] | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to James Mansion | On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:34:40 +0000 (UTC), James Mansion wrote: >> But I really don't see a reason why there is a need for two > linkers when one >> of the linkers is Open Source (and written in C). >> Christof > Have you looked at uldar? Have you looked at it? It says "uld COFF linker" which doesn't look like it would be of much use for Digital Mars at the moment... Christof -- http://cmeerw.org sip:cmeerw at cmeerw.org mailto:cmeerw at cmeerw.org xmpp:cmeerw at cmeerw.org |
June 30, 2008 Re: Bit quiet here [Boost / 64 / linker / BSD] | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Christof Meerwald | == Quote from Christof Meerwald (NOSPAM-seeMySig@cmeerw.org)'s > It says "uld COFF linker" which doesn't look like it would be of much use
> for Digital Mars at the moment...
> Christof
Well, I *use* it, but fair cop I guess.
I'm assuming the current situation is untenable.
How far from usable is the OpenWatcom stuff?
I used to like the Watcom compiler and toolset but it got so crufty that its been hard to justify any time at all.
|
July 09, 2008 Re: Bit quiet here | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Robert M. Münch | Robert M. Münch wrote:
> What I do at the moment as well. My sugestion is directed to avoid that I have to add "|| defined __DMC__" at several places.
I understand, but I think it is just wrong for DMC to predefine _MSC_VER.
|
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation