• Johannes Pfau (15/15) Feb 10 2012 When trying to add a --disable-libphobos switch to GCC I saw that GCC
• Iain Buclaw (7/22) Feb 10 2012 object.[d, di] is special to the compiler, I think it would be best to
• Johannes Pfau (10/36) Feb 10 2012 Yep, anything 'class' related won't work without object.di and probably
• Johannes Pfau (5/14) Feb 13 2012 I guess we should just keep everything as it is. A minimal runtime
• Iain Buclaw (12/26) Feb 13 2012 I think --disable-libphobos would go hand in hand with some sort of

Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> writes:

When trying to add a --disable-libphobos switch to GCC I saw that GCC
already has code that makes it possible to --disable any target
library, although I think this is not documented in the configure --help
output.

Anyway, this means configure --disable-libphobos works fine and builds
a gdc without phobos. Obviously object.di isn't installed then and this
error pops up when trying to compile something:

object.d: Error: module object is in file 'object.d' which cannot be
read

However, for C-like code a completely empty object.di works fine, so
could we disable the object.di detection when -nostdlib or -nophoboslib
is passed, or at least make it a warning instead of an error?

Or add a new switch to ignore a missing object.di? It just doesn't seem
to make sense, that object.di must be there, but can be completely
empty.

Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> writes:

On 10 February 2012 10:36, Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> wrote:
 When trying to add a --disable-libphobos switch to GCC I saw that GCC
 already has code that makes it possible to --disable any target
 library, although I think this is not documented in the configure --help
 output.

 Anyway, this means configure --disable-libphobos works fine and builds
 a gdc without phobos. Obviously object.di isn't installed then and this
 error pops up when trying to compile something:

 object.d: Error: module object is in file 'object.d' which cannot be
 read

 However, for C-like code a completely empty object.di works fine, so
 could we disable the object.di detection when -nostdlib or -nophoboslib
 is passed, or at least make it a warning instead of an error?

 Or add a new switch to ignore a missing object.di? It just doesn't seem
 to make sense, that object.di must be there, but can be completely
 empty.

object.[d, di] is special to the compiler, I think it would be best to
_always_ ship it, or have it separate from being directly under the
usual /usr/include directories for the standard library.

-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';

Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> writes:

Am Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:12:11 +0000
schrieb Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com>:

 On 10 February 2012 10:36, Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> wrote:
 When trying to add a --disable-libphobos switch to GCC I saw that
 GCC already has code that makes it possible to --disable any target
 library, although I think this is not documented in the configure
 --help output.

 Anyway, this means configure --disable-libphobos works fine and
 builds a gdc without phobos. Obviously object.di isn't installed
 then and this error pops up when trying to compile something:

 object.d: Error: module object is in file 'object.d' which cannot be
 read

 However, for C-like code a completely empty object.di works fine, so
 could we disable the object.di detection when -nostdlib or
 -nophoboslib is passed, or at least make it a warning instead of an
 error?

 Or add a new switch to ignore a missing object.di? It just doesn't
 seem to make sense, that object.di must be there, but can be
 completely empty.

 
 object.[d, di] is special to the compiler, I think it would be best to
 _always_ ship it, or have it separate from being directly under the
 usual /usr/include directories for the standard library.
 

Yep, anything 'class' related won't work without object.di and probably
much more. But to make a app using those features link, object_.d needs
to be compiled in as well, and that pulls in some druntime dependencies
(not too many), so to ship a minimal working object.di we'd also have to
ship a minimal 'runtime' library. I'm not sure what's the right
decision here, but it'd be great if could make a minimal compiler work
for C-like code with minimal dependencies (one object.di file shipped
by default definitely counts as minimal dependencies though).

Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> writes:

Am Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:36:22 +0100
schrieb Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com>:

 Yep, anything 'class' related won't work without object.di and
 probably much more. But to make a app using those features link,
 object_.d needs to be compiled in as well, and that pulls in some
 druntime dependencies (not too many), so to ship a minimal working
 object.di we'd also have to ship a minimal 'runtime' library. I'm not
 sure what's the right decision here, but it'd be great if could make
 a minimal compiler work for C-like code with minimal dependencies
 (one object.di file shipped by default definitely counts as minimal
 dependencies though).

I guess we should just keep everything as it is. A minimal runtime
seems too much effort right now and for testing very basic
functionality it's always possible to create an empty object.di.

Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> writes:

On 13 February 2012 17:55, Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> wrote:
 Am Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:36:22 +0100
 schrieb Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com>:

 Yep, anything 'class' related won't work without object.di and
 probably much more. But to make a app using those features link,
 object_.d needs to be compiled in as well, and that pulls in some
 druntime dependencies (not too many), so to ship a minimal working
 object.di we'd also have to ship a minimal 'runtime' library. I'm not
 sure what's the right decision here, but it'd be great if could make
 a minimal compiler work for C-like code with minimal dependencies
 (one object.di file shipped by default definitely counts as minimal
 dependencies though).

 I guess we should just keep everything as it is. A minimal runtime
 seems too much effort right now and for testing very basic
 functionality it's always possible to create an empty object.di.

I think --disable-libphobos would go hand in hand with some sort of
--default-gdc-lib=FOO.  FOO being the default library the driver
attempts to link to.   This would be for people who have their own
substitute for libphobos, be it a mini druntime, tango, or other
bespoke library.

However the constant should always be that object.di is always
shipped, and the compiler *always* depends on that.


Regards

-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';