http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5535

           Summary: Bulding with -D shouldn't an executable
           Product: D
           Version: unspecified
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: nobody@puremagic.com
        ReportedBy: jmdavisProg@gmx.com


--- Comment #0 from Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> 2011-02-06 17:40:15 PST ---
There's nothing on the page for the compiler (or in the --help for the compiler, though it would probably be too verbose to put it that) which indicates that building with -D or -version=D_Ddoc may not generate usable code. It's perfectly legal to have a version(D_Ddoc) block which results in code which is stubbed out, and it's _likely_ that that's going to be done in cases where functions are system-specific, and you want to be able to build the documentation on multiple platforms and/or build documentation for functions which are only on a platform other than the one that you're building the documentation on. Some of Phobos is in that sitatuation, and more of it will be as it's fixed to be able to build documentation on all platforms instead of just Windows. It can _also_ be useful to use version(D_Ddoc) blocks to generate simplified function signatures in some cases, which would _also_ result in unusable code if you build with -D.

It seems to me that we need to do one of two things if we don't want this to be causing problems:

1. Alter dmd such that building with -D (and perhaps even when building with -version=D_Ddoc if that's used explicitly), it does _not_ generate an excecutable (or maybe any code at all) but just documentation. dmd _already_ doesn't build a normal executable when building with -unittest and -cov, so that wouldn't be completely new (though -unittest and -cov generate altered executables rather than none).

2. Make it clear in the dmd documentation that building with -D is _not_ generally expected to result in valid code. It will in many cases but not in all. So, programmers should _not_ rely on it.

Personally, I'd prefer #1, but I'm not sure how Walter would feel about that. If #1 is not reasonable, then #2 should be done.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5535


Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WONTFIX


--- Comment #1 from Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> 2011-11-20 03:28:51 PST ---
I really don't think that documentation should be generated as part of a build which generates an executable, but given that we decided that we weren't going to assume that for Phobos and added StdDdoc to mitigate the problem, this enhancement request stands no chance of ever being implemented, so I'm closing it.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------