Hello all,
   I have been following D for over a year now, and have just started my
first big project.  I am really enjoying it so far!

   I am using Cygwin, with the patched in gdc 0.24 for D 1.0 (old, I know).

   I am also using Make as my build system.  I tried to get bud and dsss to
work, but failed :(

   Things are working fairly well, but I sometimes have to do a "make
clean".  The only dependencies I have in my Makefile are "%.o: %.d" (objects
depend on source).

I think there are circumstances where one .d depends on another, but I'm not sure...  is it every import?

I tried "gdc -MM", but it said that option is not supported for D.

Any recommendations?  Do I need to break out sed and awk?

Thanks,
Ned

I am documenting my experiences: http://mudge-a209.blogspot.com/2010/04/delight.html

bud, rebuild and xfbuild were designed so we wouldn't NEED Makefiles in the first place.

Unless you've got a good reason, just use a recent dmd and xfbuild.

On 04/10/2010 08:27 PM, nedbrek wrote:
> Hello all,
>     I have been following D for over a year now, and have just started my
> first big project.  I am really enjoying it so far!
>
>     I am using Cygwin, with the patched in gdc 0.24 for D 1.0 (old, I know).
>
>     I am also using Make as my build system.  I tried to get bud and dsss to
> work, but failed :(
>
>     Things are working fairly well, but I sometimes have to do a "make
> clean".  The only dependencies I have in my Makefile are "%.o: %.d" (objects
> depend on source).
>
> I think there are circumstances where one .d depends on another, but I'm not
> sure...  is it every import?
>
> I tried "gdc -MM", but it said that option is not supported for D.
>
> Any recommendations?  Do I need to break out sed and awk?
>
> Thanks,
> Ned
>
> I am documenting my experiences:
> http://mudge-a209.blogspot.com/2010/04/delight.html
>
>

I think if you pass your source directories via -I the order that *.d get compiled doesn't matter (beyond efficiency ..).

Haven't used gdc in a long time though.

As far as dependencies, yeah, a d file will be dependent on anything it imports. In DMD there's a -deps flag that outputs that information, and in verbose mode, it will print out any import that it processes. I don't know how much of that gdc has.

But I really think you shouldn't do that anyways.

Hello,

"Daniel Keep" <daniel.keep.lists@gmail.com> wrote in message news:hpra3o$2pp6$1@digitalmars.com...
>
> bud, rebuild and xfbuild were designed so we wouldn't NEED Makefiles in the first place.
>
> Unless you've got a good reason, just use a recent dmd and xfbuild.

Yea, I looked at gdc vs. dmd and Phobos vs. Tango.  I really get hit on all sides...

I'd like to use dmd, because it's got better support.  Also, I'm interested in the fuller library in Tango.  But, I'm constrained by what I'd like to do.

At some point, I'd like to make plugins for Tcl, and that means building a .dll.  From my experience that can work through gdc, but not in dmd.  Maybe that has changed?

Thanks,
Ned

Hello,

"Ellery Newcomer" <ellery-newcomer@utulsa.edu> wrote in message news:hprahm$310n$1@digitalmars.com...
> On 04/10/2010 08:27 PM, nedbrek wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I think there are circumstances where one .d depends on another, but I'm
>> not
>> sure...  is it every import?
>>
>> I tried "gdc -MM", but it said that option is not supported for D.
>>
>> Any recommendations?  Do I need to break out sed and awk?
>>
>
> I think if you pass your source directories via -I the order that *.d get compiled doesn't matter (beyond efficiency ..).

Yea, I think the order is ok.

> As far as dependencies, yeah, a d file will be dependent on anything it imports. In DMD there's a -deps flag that outputs that information, and in verbose mode, it will print out any import that it processes. I don't know how much of that gdc has.

Ok, I have dmd installed, maybe I can use it to generate the dependencies...

> But I really think you shouldn't do that anyways.

Hehe, yea.  I'd prefer not to, but I think I am constrained (need a dll).

Thanks,
Ned

On 4/11/10 13:12, nedbrek wrote:
> Hello,
>
> "Daniel Keep"<daniel.keep.lists@gmail.com>  wrote in message
> news:hpra3o$2pp6$1@digitalmars.com...
>>
>> bud, rebuild and xfbuild were designed so we wouldn't NEED Makefiles in
>> the first place.
>>
>> Unless you've got a good reason, just use a recent dmd and xfbuild.
>
> Yea, I looked at gdc vs. dmd and Phobos vs. Tango.  I really get hit on all
> sides...
>
> I'd like to use dmd, because it's got better support.  Also, I'm interested
> in the fuller library in Tango.  But, I'm constrained by what I'd like to
> do.
>
> At some point, I'd like to make plugins for Tcl, and that means building a
> .dll.  From my experience that can work through gdc, but not in dmd.  Maybe
> that has changed?

I think these patches change things: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4071

> Thanks,
> Ned
>
>

Hello,

"Jacob Carlborg" <doob@me.com> wrote in message news:hps9bf$1q9o$1@digitalmars.com...
> On 4/11/10 13:12, nedbrek wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> "Daniel Keep"<daniel.keep.lists@gmail.com>  wrote in message news:hpra3o$2pp6$1@digitalmars.com...
>>>
>>
>> At some point, I'd like to make plugins for Tcl, and that means building
>> a
>> .dll.  From my experience that can work through gdc, but not in dmd.
>> Maybe
>> that has changed?
>
> I think these patches change things: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4071

Interesting, thanks.  I will have to re-evaluate things... the other problem I had was that the Tcl lib is in COFF format, and dmd needed OPT.  I don't think that has changed...

Ned

On 4/11/10 21:38, nedbrek wrote:
> Hello,
>
> "Jacob Carlborg"<doob@me.com>  wrote in message
> news:hps9bf$1q9o$1@digitalmars.com...
>> On 4/11/10 13:12, nedbrek wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> "Daniel Keep"<daniel.keep.lists@gmail.com>   wrote in message
>>> news:hpra3o$2pp6$1@digitalmars.com...
>>>>
>>>
>>> At some point, I'd like to make plugins for Tcl, and that means building
>>> a
>>> .dll.  From my experience that can work through gdc, but not in dmd.
>>> Maybe
>>> that has changed?
>>
>> I think these patches change things:
>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4071
>
> Interesting, thanks.  I will have to re-evaluate things... the other problem
> I had was that the Tcl lib is in COFF format, and dmd needed OPT.  I don't
> think that has changed...
>
> Ned

There is a tool that can convert COFF to OMF: http://www.digitalmars.com/ctg/coff2omf.html

Hello all,

"Jacob Carlborg" <doob@me.com> wrote in message news:hpus5n$8ni$1@digitalmars.com...
> On 4/11/10 21:38, nedbrek wrote:
>>
>> Interesting, thanks.  I will have to re-evaluate things... the other
>> problem
>> I had was that the Tcl lib is in COFF format, and dmd needed OPT.  I
>> don't
>> think that has changed...
>
> There is a tool that can convert COFF to OMF: http://www.digitalmars.com/ctg/coff2omf.html

Is coff2omf still non-free?  I guess the other option is to build Tcl using dmc...

Thanks,
Ned