www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

D.gnu - Finally got installed, but a few oddities remain

reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
I finally installed gdc 0.10-6 (?) on Mac OS X.3.  Now I can finally try 
stuff out while posting, rather than having to wait till I get back home 
to my PC.

But there are oddities:

1. gdc --version reports 3.4.3, the same as gcc.  I thought it was gdc 
0.10-6.

2. The --help for gcc and gdc are identical modulo two instances of 'c' 
becoming 'd'.  In particular there's nothing to be seen related to D 
features (such as debug/version or release mode).

3. dmd (is this just a wrapper for gdc with a different command line 
syntax?) just gives

dmd: no input files

if no arguments are specified.  How do I get it to display help?

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
the 'group where everyone may benefit.
May 05 2005
parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Stewart Gordon wrote:


 I finally installed gdc 0.10-6 (?) on Mac OS X.3.


"6" is a release no, and gdc version 0.11 should be up shortly.

Along with a real homepage, at http://gdcmac.sourceforge.net/


 1. gdc --version reports 3.4.3, the same as gcc.  I thought it was gdc 
 0.10-6.


It reports the GCC version (only). It'll be 3.3.5 next time.

The version of GDC here would be "0.10", with a release of "6"


 2. The --help for gcc and gdc are identical modulo two instances of 'c' 
 becoming 'd'.  In particular there's nothing to be seen related to D 
 features (such as debug/version or release mode).


Same here, just the GCC stuff... (same frontend for them all)

See http://www.algonet.se/~afb/d/d-manpages/gdc.1.html


 3. dmd (is this just a wrapper for gdc with a different command line 
 syntax?) just gives


Yes, it's just a wrapper for gdc (written in Perl, actually)

http://www.algonet.se/~afb/d/d-manpages/dmd-script.1.html


 dmd: no input files
 
 if no arguments are specified.  How do I get it to display help?


For the next version, "man dmd" should work again. A patch is in
the works too, to make "dmd" show help when called without files...

Thomas Kuehne was using it to show info, for use with his dstress.

--anders
May 05 2005
parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
Anders F Björklund wrote:

 Stewart Gordon wrote:


<snip>

 1. gdc --version reports 3.4.3, the same as gcc.  I thought it was gdc 
 0.10-6.


 
 It reports the GCC version (only).


It certainly shouldn't be misrepresenting it as the GDC version.

Or are all GNU compilers supposed to be in a single space of version 
numbers?


  It'll be 3.3.5 next time.


Huh?  Why the downgrade?


 The version of GDC here would be "0.10", with a release of "6"


So, how do I get the GDC version number out of it?


 2. The --help for gcc and gdc are identical modulo two instances of 
 'c' becoming 'd'.  In particular there's nothing to be seen related to 
 D features (such as debug/version or release mode).


 
 Same here, just the GCC stuff... (same frontend for them all)


<snip>

If GCC's incapable of being tailored to the language in this respect, 
then surely that's a design flaw.

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
the 'group where everyone may benefit.
May 06 2005
next sibling parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Stewart Gordon wrote:


 It reports the GCC version (only).


 
 It certainly shouldn't be misrepresenting it as the GDC version.


It may be misleading... Maybe David can answer if it's changeable ?


  It'll be 3.3.5 next time.


 
 Huh?  Why the downgrade?


To be compatible with Apple's compiler, which is based on GCC 3.3

--anders
May 06 2005
prev sibling parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Stewart Gordon wrote:


 1. gdc --version reports 3.4.3, the same as gcc.  I thought it was 
 gdc 0.10-6.


 It reports the GCC version (only).


 
 It certainly shouldn't be misrepresenting it as the GDC version.
 
 Or are all GNU compilers supposed to be in a single space of version 
 numbers?


It looks like GPC (Pascal) reports something like:

     gpc 20041218, based on gcc-3.4.3
     Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

So we could have GDC (D) report the more useful:

     gdc 0.11, based on gcc 3.3.5
     Copyright (C) 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.


Instead of the current: (I believe it's the default?)

     gdc (GCC) 3.3.5
     Copyright (C) 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

I'm not sure exactly where you change this, though ?
But it should be doable, so let's put it on the TODO.

--anders
May 07 2005