www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - State of LDC

reply Benjamin Thaut <code benjamin-thaut.de> writes:
Is the LDC project dead? the last update I found is from 2010.
-- 
Kind Regards
Benjamin Thaut
Nov 10 2011
parent reply Jude Young <10equals2 gmail.com> writes:
On Fri 11 Nov 2011 01:13:32 AM CST, Benjamin Thaut wrote:

 Is the LDC project dead? the last update I found is from 2010.


Thanks to Trass3r via stackoverflow.

https://bitbucket.org/lindquist/ldc/changesets
Looks like there are some commits a few months back.

It might have died in the meantime though
Nov 10 2011
next sibling parent reply =?UTF-8?B?QWxleCBSw7hubmUgUGV0ZXJzZW4=?= <xtzgzorex gmail.com> writes:
On 11-11-2011 08:22, Jude Young wrote:

 On Fri 11 Nov 2011 01:13:32 AM CST, Benjamin Thaut wrote:

 Is the LDC project dead? the last update I found is from 2010.


 Thanks to Trass3r via stackoverflow.

 https://bitbucket.org/lindquist/ldc/changesets
 Looks like there are some commits a few months back.

 It might have died in the meantime though


It is on GitHub: https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc

- Alex
Nov 11 2011
parent reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
On 11/11/2011 3:57 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:

 On 11-11-2011 08:22, Jude Young wrote:

 On Fri 11 Nov 2011 01:13:32 AM CST, Benjamin Thaut wrote:

 Is the LDC project dead? the last update I found is from 2010.


 Thanks to Trass3r via stackoverflow.

 https://bitbucket.org/lindquist/ldc/changesets
 Looks like there are some commits a few months back.

 It might have died in the meantime though


 It is on GitHub: https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc

 - Alex


This needs to be publicized somewhere.  This whole time I thought LDC 
was dead because I was looking on Thomas Lindquist's BitBucket repo, 
which hasn't been updated since July.
Nov 11 2011
parent reply =?UTF-8?B?QWxleCBSw7hubmUgUGV0ZXJzZW4=?= <xtzgzorex gmail.com> writes:
On 11-11-2011 14:35, dsimcha wrote:

 On 11/11/2011 3:57 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:

 On 11-11-2011 08:22, Jude Young wrote:

 On Fri 11 Nov 2011 01:13:32 AM CST, Benjamin Thaut wrote:

 Is the LDC project dead? the last update I found is from 2010.


 Thanks to Trass3r via stackoverflow.

 https://bitbucket.org/lindquist/ldc/changesets
 Looks like there are some commits a few months back.

 It might have died in the meantime though


 It is on GitHub: https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc

 - Alex


 This needs to be publicized somewhere. This whole time I thought LDC was
 dead because I was looking on Thomas Lindquist's BitBucket repo, which
 hasn't been updated since July.


Come to think of it, I don't think it was announced anywhere but on IRC. 
There was, however, an NG post a while back, asking whether LDC could be 
hosted under the DPL organization on GitHub (it didn't get much of any 
attention...).

- Alex
Nov 11 2011
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 11/11/2011 5:43 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:

 On 11-11-2011 14:35, dsimcha wrote:

 On 11/11/2011 3:57 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:

 On 11-11-2011 08:22, Jude Young wrote:

 On Fri 11 Nov 2011 01:13:32 AM CST, Benjamin Thaut wrote:

 Is the LDC project dead? the last update I found is from 2010.


 Thanks to Trass3r via stackoverflow.

 https://bitbucket.org/lindquist/ldc/changesets
 Looks like there are some commits a few months back.

 It might have died in the meantime though


 It is on GitHub: https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc

 - Alex


 This needs to be publicized somewhere. This whole time I thought LDC was
 dead because I was looking on Thomas Lindquist's BitBucket repo, which
 hasn't been updated since July.


 Come to think of it, I don't think it was announced anywhere but on IRC. There
 was, however, an NG post a while back, asking whether LDC could be hosted under
 the DPL organization on GitHub (it didn't get much of any attention...).


I hadn't noticed that request.

I don't know if it is a good idea or not to put it under
d-programming-language. 
One issue is it might run out of space for the free version :-) Another might
be 
the implication of who is in charge of it.

Anyhow, may I make a suggestion? I tried to make a deimos project under github, 
but that was taken. So instead, I thought of d-programming-deimos, which seems 
perfect. Can I suggest renaming ldc-developers to d-programming-ldc? I think 
that would help tie the D related projects together.

Right now, someone looking at "ldc-developers" would have no idea it is related 
to D.

Prefixing D projects with "d-programming" would help out with brand visibility.
Nov 11 2011
next sibling parent reply =?UTF-8?B?QWxleCBSw7hubmUgUGV0ZXJzZW4=?= <xtzgzorex gmail.com> writes:
On 11-11-2011 19:31, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 11/11/2011 5:43 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:

 On 11-11-2011 14:35, dsimcha wrote:

 On 11/11/2011 3:57 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:

 On 11-11-2011 08:22, Jude Young wrote:

 On Fri 11 Nov 2011 01:13:32 AM CST, Benjamin Thaut wrote:

 Is the LDC project dead? the last update I found is from 2010.


 Thanks to Trass3r via stackoverflow.

 https://bitbucket.org/lindquist/ldc/changesets
 Looks like there are some commits a few months back.

 It might have died in the meantime though


 It is on GitHub: https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc

 - Alex


 This needs to be publicized somewhere. This whole time I thought LDC was
 dead because I was looking on Thomas Lindquist's BitBucket repo, which
 hasn't been updated since July.


 Come to think of it, I don't think it was announced anywhere but on
 IRC. There
 was, however, an NG post a while back, asking whether LDC could be
 hosted under
 the DPL organization on GitHub (it didn't get much of any attention...).


 I hadn't noticed that request.

 I don't know if it is a good idea or not to put it under
 d-programming-language. One issue is it might run out of space for the
 free version :-) Another might be the implication of who is in charge of
 it.


I was in contact with GitHub some months back, and the space limit is 
actually a soft limit - for open source projects, they don't actually 
care if we exceed the limit (as long as we aren't doing anything 
obviously evil of course :)).

I think you could use the teams system in organizations to deal with 
admin access to the repos.


 Anyhow, may I make a suggestion? I tried to make a deimos project under
 github, but that was taken. So instead, I thought of
 d-programming-deimos, which seems perfect. Can I suggest renaming
 ldc-developers to d-programming-ldc? I think that would help tie the D
 related projects together.

 Right now, someone looking at "ldc-developers" would have no idea it is
 related to D.

 Prefixing D projects with "d-programming" would help out with brand
 visibility.


Makes sense.

- Alex
Nov 11 2011
parent Brad Anderson <eco gnuk.net> writes:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Alex R=F8nne Petersen
<xtzgzorex gmail.com>wrote:


 On 11-11-2011 19:31, Walter Bright wrote:


 On 11/11/2011 5:43 AM, Alex R=F8nne Petersen wrote:


 On 11-11-2011 14:35, dsimcha wrote:


 On 11/11/2011 3:57 AM, Alex R=F8nne Petersen wrote:


 On 11-11-2011 08:22, Jude Young wrote:


 On Fri 11 Nov 2011 01:13:32 AM CST, Benjamin Thaut wrote:


 Is the LDC project dead? the last update I found is from 2010.


 Thanks to Trass3r via stackoverflow.

 https://bitbucket.org/**lindquist/ldc/changesets<https://bitbucket.o=












rg/lindquist/ldc/changesets>

 Looks like there are some commits a few months back.

 It might have died in the meantime though


 It is on GitHub: https://github.com/ldc-**developers/ldc<https://gith=










ub.com/ldc-developers/ldc>

 - Alex


 This needs to be publicized somewhere. This whole time I thought LDC w=








as

 dead because I was looking on Thomas Lindquist's BitBucket repo, which
 hasn't been updated since July.


 Come to think of it, I don't think it was announced anywhere but on
 IRC. There
 was, however, an NG post a while back, asking whether LDC could be
 hosted under
 the DPL organization on GitHub (it didn't get much of any attention...)=






.


 I hadn't noticed that request.

 I don't know if it is a good idea or not to put it under
 d-programming-language. One issue is it might run out of space for the
 free version :-) Another might be the implication of who is in charge of
 it.


 I was in contact with GitHub some months back, and the space limit is
 actually a soft limit - for open source projects, they don't actually car=


e

 if we exceed the limit (as long as we aren't doing anything obviously evi=


l

 of course :)).

 I think you could use the teams system in organizations to deal with admi=


n

 access to the repos.


A friend of mine set up the wxWidget's github mirror and they told him the
same thing.  Serious open source projects  don't really need to worry about
the space limit.


 Anyhow, may I make a suggestion? I tried to make a deimos project under
 github, but that was taken. So instead, I thought of
 d-programming-deimos, which seems perfect. Can I suggest renaming
 ldc-developers to d-programming-ldc? I think that would help tie the D
 related projects together.

 Right now, someone looking at "ldc-developers" would have no idea it is
 related to D.

 Prefixing D projects with "d-programming" would help out with brand
 visibility.


 Makes sense.

 - Alex





 Nov 11 2011



prev sibling  parent reply David Nadlinger <see klickverbot.at>  writes:


[I can only speak for myself as a contributor to LDC, other devs might 
have other opinions]

On 11/11/11 7:31 PM, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 11/11/2011 5:43 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:

 On 11-11-2011 14:35, dsimcha wrote:

 This needs to be publicized somewhere. This whole time I thought LDC was
 dead because I was looking on Thomas Lindquist's BitBucket repo, which
 hasn't been updated since July.


 Come to think of it, I don't think it was announced anywhere but on
 IRC.




It originally wasn't announced on the NG because the move was not yet 
complete, but then, progress in that regard somewhat stalled, leading to 
the awkward situation we are having now. This definitely needs 
improvement asap, I'll see what I can do over the next few days.


 There was, however, an NG post a while back, asking whether LDC could be
 hosted under
 the DPL organization on GitHub (it didn't get much of any attention...).


 I hadn't noticed that request.


I only barely remember something related as well – I don't think it was 
actually a LDC committer asking…


 I don't know if it is a good idea or not to put it under
 d-programming-language. One issue is it might run out of space for the
 free version :-) Another might be the implication of who is in charge of
 it.


I don't know if it's a good idea either. Historically, so to say, LDC 
was always a separate project, and some of the reasons for that 
certainly don't apply any longer. On the one hand, it would certainly 
make it easier for people to find the project, and since LDC uses the 
official frontend, it's probably not even that bad of a fit.

On the other hand, though, I have to admit (nolens volens), that LDC is 
usually less well maintained than DMD and Phobos, and as such, it might 
not be the best idea to include it in the official organization. 
Furthermore, having it as a separate organization probably fits the 
usual GitHub collaboration model better, since we can have our own 
druntime/Phobos forks – intra-repo pull requests are perfectly possible, 
but blurring the line between what's actively developed DMD and what's 
release-tracking LDC stuff could be bad.


 Anyhow, may I make a suggestion? I tried to make a deimos project under
 github, but that was taken. So instead, I thought of
 d-programming-deimos, which seems perfect. Can I suggest renaming
 ldc-developers to d-programming-ldc? I think that would help tie the D
 related projects together.

 Right now, someone looking at "ldc-developers" would have no idea it is
 related to D.

 Prefixing D projects with "d-programming" would help out with brand
 visibility.


When we started the move to GitHub, I tried to create an »ldc« org, but 
it was already taken. The best alternative we could come up with on IRC 
was ldc-developers, which we then decided to use.

Regarding d-programming-ldc, I am not much sure if it would really 
change anything, but if it is generally agreed on, fine with me. Not 
having formally announced the move could actually come in handy here, 
since the only thing that depends on the path (besides quite a number of 
local user repos) is probably the Fedora packaging script.

In any case, I think the most important thing here is to reach consensus 
as fast as possible here, so that we can restore LDC into a state where 
it isn't vastly undersold simply because of one or two days of 
documentation/publicity work…

David



 Nov 11 2011



 next sibling parent  =?UTF-8?B?QWxleCBSw7hubmUgUGV0ZXJzZW4=?= <xtzgzorex gmail.com>  writes:


On 11-11-2011 21:06, David Nadlinger wrote:

 [I can only speak for myself as a contributor to LDC, other devs might
 have other opinions]

 On 11/11/11 7:31 PM, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 11/11/2011 5:43 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:

 On 11-11-2011 14:35, dsimcha wrote:

 This needs to be publicized somewhere. This whole time I thought LDC
 was
 dead because I was looking on Thomas Lindquist's BitBucket repo, which
 hasn't been updated since July.


 Come to think of it, I don't think it was announced anywhere but on
 IRC.




 It originally wasn't announced on the NG because the move was not yet
 complete, but then, progress in that regard somewhat stalled, leading to
 the awkward situation we are having now. This definitely needs
 improvement asap, I'll see what I can do over the next few days.


 There was, however, an NG post a while back, asking whether LDC could be
 hosted under
 the DPL organization on GitHub (it didn't get much of any attention...).


 I hadn't noticed that request.


 I only barely remember something related as well – I don't think it was
 actually a LDC committer asking…


It was bioinfornatics, IIRC. He also did talk about this on IRC.


 I don't know if it is a good idea or not to put it under
 d-programming-language. One issue is it might run out of space for the
 free version :-) Another might be the implication of who is in charge of
 it.


 I don't know if it's a good idea either. Historically, so to say, LDC
 was always a separate project, and some of the reasons for that
 certainly don't apply any longer. On the one hand, it would certainly
 make it easier for people to find the project, and since LDC uses the
 official frontend, it's probably not even that bad of a fit.

 On the other hand, though, I have to admit (nolens volens), that LDC is
 usually less well maintained than DMD and Phobos, and as such, it might
 not be the best idea to include it in the official organization.
 Furthermore, having it as a separate organization probably fits the
 usual GitHub collaboration model better, since we can have our own
 druntime/Phobos forks – intra-repo pull requests are perfectly possible,
 but blurring the line between what's actively developed DMD and what's
 release-tracking LDC stuff could be bad.


 Anyhow, may I make a suggestion? I tried to make a deimos project under
 github, but that was taken. So instead, I thought of
 d-programming-deimos, which seems perfect. Can I suggest renaming
 ldc-developers to d-programming-ldc? I think that would help tie the D
 related projects together.

 Right now, someone looking at "ldc-developers" would have no idea it is
 related to D.

 Prefixing D projects with "d-programming" would help out with brand
 visibility.


 When we started the move to GitHub, I tried to create an »ldc« org, but
 it was already taken. The best alternative we could come up with on IRC
 was ldc-developers, which we then decided to use.

 Regarding d-programming-ldc, I am not much sure if it would really
 change anything, but if it is generally agreed on, fine with me. Not
 having formally announced the move could actually come in handy here,
 since the only thing that depends on the path (besides quite a number of
 local user repos) is probably the Fedora packaging script.

 In any case, I think the most important thing here is to reach consensus
 as fast as possible here, so that we can restore LDC into a state where
 it isn't vastly undersold simply because of one or two days of
 documentation/publicity work…

 David


I still think it would be great if we could unify it under the DPL org. 
To a newcomer, the current state of things must look like there's a 
pretty fragmented community...

- Alex



 Nov 11 2011



prev sibling  parent reply Ruslan Mullakhmetov <tiabaldu gmail.com>  writes:


On 2011-11-12 00:06:27 +0400, David Nadlinger said:


 When we started the move to GitHub, I tried to create an »ldc« org, but 
 it was already taken. The best alternative we could come up with on IRC 
 was ldc-developers, which we then decided to use.
 
 Regarding d-programming-ldc, I am not much sure if it would really 
 change anything, but if it is generally agreed on, fine with me. Not 
 having formally announced the move could actually come in handy here, 
 since the only thing that depends on the path (besides quite a number 
 of local user repos) is probably the Fedora packaging script.


what about ldc.llvm.org? I think it's possible.

as for d-p-l.org, it seems to me to be too long despite of it's 
currently the in first place at chrome start page )))

i looked up fo dpl.* but it apperntly taken. Probably this topic has 
been already discussed.
-- 
BR, Ruslan Mullakhmetov



 Nov 11 2011



  parent reply Jonas Drewsen <jdrewsen nospam.com>  writes:


Den 11-11-2011 23:51, Ruslan Mullakhmetov skrev:

 On 2011-11-12 00:06:27 +0400, David Nadlinger said:


 When we started the move to GitHub, I tried to create an »ldc« org,
 but it was already taken. The best alternative we could come up with
 on IRC was ldc-developers, which we then decided to use.

 Regarding d-programming-ldc, I am not much sure if it would really
 change anything, but if it is generally agreed on, fine with me. Not
 having formally announced the move could actually come in handy here,
 since the only thing that depends on the path (besides quite a number
 of local user repos) is probably the Fedora packaging script.


 what about ldc.llvm.org? I think it's possible.

 as for d-p-l.org, it seems to me to be too long despite of it's
 currently the in first place at chrome start page )))

 i looked up fo dpl.* but it apperntly taken. Probably this topic has
 been already discussed.


dlang.org actually contains a copy of d-p-l.org. Maybe the owner of 
dlang.org is willing to let digitalmars take over that domain and make 
it the official domain. That would be much better that d-p-l.org I think.

/Jonas



 Nov 12 2011



  parent  Ruslan Mullakhmetov <tiabaldu gmail.com>  writes:


On 2011-11-12 11:29:51 +0000, Jonas Drewsen said:


 dlang.org actually contains a copy of d-p-l.org. Maybe the owner of 
 dlang.org is willing to let digitalmars take over that domain and make 
 it the official domain. That would be much better that d-p-l.org I 
 think.


Wow! I didn't know. that's good.
-- 
BR, Ruslan Mullakhmetov



 Nov 14 2011



prev sibling  parent reply David Nadlinger <see klickverbot.at>  writes:


On 11/11/11 8:22 AM, Jude Young wrote:

 https://bitbucket.org/lindquist/ldc/changesets
 Looks like there are some commits a few months back.


LDC moved to GitHub (https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc, DMD 2.056 
and LLVM 3.0 support are being worked on by Alexey in branches). 
Unfortunately, shortly after the move was done, most of us became 
extremely busy with other work, leaving the project, from an outside 
point of view, in a limbo between the hosting platforms.

Let me use this opportunity to ask for help in this regard: If you want 
to help the LDC project, no matter whether you are experienced with 
compiler hacking or not, currently one of the best ways would be to 
start/continue migrating all the (Wiki, …) content from DSource to 
GitHub (the project Wiki and possibly Pages). Alexey is doing a great 
job regarding D2 (we recently switched the default build target to 
LDC2), but currently, LDC looks worse than it really is simply because 
no one took the time to sit down and update the website/docs…

If you are interested, let us know via #ldc  freenode or GitHub pull 
requests. ;)

David



 Nov 11 2011



  parent reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com>  writes:


On 11/11/2011 6:37 AM, David Nadlinger wrote:

 Let me use this opportunity to ask for help in this regard: If you want
 to help the LDC project, no matter whether you are experienced with
 compiler hacking or not, currently one of the best ways would be to
 start/continue migrating all the (Wiki, …) content from DSource to
 GitHub (the project Wiki and possibly Pages). Alexey is doing a great
 job regarding D2 (we recently switched the default build target to
 LDC2), but currently, LDC looks worse than it really is simply because
 no one took the time to sit down and update the website/docs…

 If you are interested, let us know via #ldc  freenode or GitHub pull
 requests. ;)

 David


Is D2 support on Linux 64 far enough along yet that it would be helpful 
to put it through the paces and file some bug reports?



 Nov 11 2011



  parent reply Trass3r <un known.com>  writes:


 Is D2 support on Linux 64 far enough along yet that it would be helpful  
 to put it through the paces and file some bug reports?


It compiles my stuff flawlessly. Also it's the only option to get LTO atm  
;)



 Nov 11 2011



  parent reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com>  writes:


== Quote from Trass3r (un known.com)'s article

 Is D2 support on Linux 64 far enough along yet that it would be helpful
 to put it through the paces and file some bug reports?


 It compiles my stuff flawlessly. Also it's the only option to get LTO atm
 ;)


Excellent, though if it works reasonably well with Linux-64 the wiki should
reflect this.  I thought I'd give it a try for some stuff that is extremely
performance critical and requires good optimization.  I followed the
instructions
at https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/wiki/Installation and I keep getting
the
following build error:

[ 23%] Built target ldc2
[ 24%] Generating src/rt/util/utf.o, src/rt/util/utf.bc
object.d: Error: module object is in file 'object.d' which cannot be read

import path[0] = /home/dsimcha/ldcStuff/ldc/druntime/src
import path[1] = /home/dsimcha/ldcStuff/ldc/druntime/src/gc
import path[2] = /home/dsimcha/apps/include/d
import path[3] = /home/dsimcha/apps/include/d/phobos
import path[4] = /home/dsimcha/apps/include/d/ldc
make[3]: *** [runtime/src/rt/util/utf.o] Error 1
make[2]: *** [runtime/CMakeFiles/druntime-ldc.dir/all] Error 2
make[1]: *** [runtime/CMakeFiles/phobos2.dir/rule] Error 2
make: *** [phobos2] Error 2

Any suggestions on what I could be doing wrong?



 Nov 11 2011



 next sibling parent  Trass3r <un known.com>  writes:


bioinfornatics has recently been trying to improve the build scripts. I  
guess something went wrong there.



 Nov 11 2011



prev sibling  parent reply David Nadlinger <see klickverbot.at>  writes:


On 11/11/11 6:00 PM, dsimcha wrote:

 Excellent, though if it works reasonably well with Linux-64 the wiki should
 reflect this.  I thought I'd give it a try for some stuff that is extremely
 performance critical and requires good optimization.  I followed the
instructions
 at https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/wiki/Installation and I keep getting
the
 following build error:

 [ 23%] Built target ldc2
 [ 24%] Generating src/rt/util/utf.o, src/rt/util/utf.bc
 object.d: Error: module object is in file 'object.d' which cannot be read

 import path[0] = /home/dsimcha/ldcStuff/ldc/druntime/src
 import path[1] = /home/dsimcha/ldcStuff/ldc/druntime/src/gc
 import path[2] = /home/dsimcha/apps/include/d
 import path[3] = /home/dsimcha/apps/include/d/phobos
 import path[4] = /home/dsimcha/apps/include/d/ldc
 make[3]: *** [runtime/src/rt/util/utf.o] Error 1
 make[2]: *** [runtime/CMakeFiles/druntime-ldc.dir/all] Error 2
 make[1]: *** [runtime/CMakeFiles/phobos2.dir/rule] Error 2
 make: *** [phobos2] Error 2

 Any suggestions on what I could be doing wrong?


You did check out the druntime/Phobos submodules, right (if you hadn't 
initially, try deleting the build directory and running CMake again)? 
Other than that, I can't really say much – seems like the search paths 
could be off, but Jonathan Mercier recently adapted the build scripts 
for Fedora packaging, so he'd probably be the one to answer the question.

David



 Nov 11 2011



  parent reply bioinfornatics <bioinfornatics fedoraproject.rog>  writes:


Le vendredi 11 novembre 2011 =C3=A0 18:16 +0100, David Nadlinger a =C3=A9cr=
it :

 On 11/11/11 6:00 PM, dsimcha wrote:

 Excellent, though if it works reasonably well with Linux-64 the wiki sh=




ould

 reflect this.  I thought I'd give it a try for some stuff that is extre=




mely

 performance critical and requires good optimization.  I followed the in=




structions

 at https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/wiki/Installation and I keep g=




etting the

 following build error:

 [ 23%] Built target ldc2
 [ 24%] Generating src/rt/util/utf.o, src/rt/util/utf.bc
 object.d: Error: module object is in file 'object.d' which cannot be re=




ad

 import path[0] =3D /home/dsimcha/ldcStuff/ldc/druntime/src
 import path[1] =3D /home/dsimcha/ldcStuff/ldc/druntime/src/gc
 import path[2] =3D /home/dsimcha/apps/include/d
 import path[3] =3D /home/dsimcha/apps/include/d/phobos
 import path[4] =3D /home/dsimcha/apps/include/d/ldc
 make[3]: *** [runtime/src/rt/util/utf.o] Error 1
 make[2]: *** [runtime/CMakeFiles/druntime-ldc.dir/all] Error 2
 make[1]: *** [runtime/CMakeFiles/phobos2.dir/rule] Error 2
 make: *** [phobos2] Error 2

 Any suggestions on what I could be doing wrong?


=20
 You did check out the druntime/Phobos submodules, right (if you hadn't=


=20

 initially, try deleting the build directory and running CMake again)?=20
 Other than that, I can't really say much =E2=80=93 seems like the search =


paths=20

 could be off, but Jonathan Mercier recently adapted the build scripts=20
 for Fedora packaging, so he'd probably be the one to answer the question.
=20
 David


did you have a conf file here: /etc/ldc2.conf
if yes could you try this:


and run make
$ make

read this please https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/wiki/Installation



 Nov 11 2011



 next sibling parent  dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com>  writes:


== Quote from bioinfornatics (bioinfornatics fedoraproject.rog)'s article

 did you have a conf file here: /etc/ldc2.conf
 if yes could you try this:


 and run make
 $ make
 read this please https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/wiki/Installation


This fixes it.  Thanks.  Now, hello world compiles.  There are still tons of
little issues that I ran into just playing around with the thing for a few
minutes.  I definitely wouldn't use it for real work yet.  On the other hand,
I'm
pleasantly surprised how far along it is.  It's clearly far enough along to dig
in
and file some bug reports this weekend.



 Nov 11 2011



prev sibling  parent reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com>  writes:


On 11/11/2011 1:32 PM, bioinfornatics wrote:

 did you have a conf file here: /etc/ldc2.conf
 if yes could you try this:


 and run make
 $ make

 read this please https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/wiki/Installation


Ok, now I still have one other problem with the build system:  How do 
you get it to do multilib/multiarch builds?  I can't create 32-bit 
binaries on a 64-bit system because Phobos/druntime aren't being built 
for 32 bits.



 Nov 12 2011



  parent reply bioinfornatics <bioinfornatics fedoraproject.rog>  writes:


Le samedi 12 novembre 2011 =C3=A0 10:24 -0500, dsimcha a =C3=A9crit :

 On 11/11/2011 1:32 PM, bioinfornatics wrote:

 did you have a conf file here: /etc/ldc2.conf
 if yes could you try this:


 and run make
 $ make

 read this please https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/wiki/Installatio=




n


=20
 Ok, now I still have one other problem with the build system:  How do=20
 you get it to do multilib/multiarch builds?  I can't create 32-bit=20
 binaries on a 64-bit system because Phobos/druntime aren't being built=


=20

 for 32 bits.


and if use add this command to cmake: -DD_FLAGS=3D"-g;-w;-d;-m32" ?



 Nov 13 2011



  parent reply bioinfornatics <bioinfornatics fedoraproject.rog>  writes:


Le dimanche 13 novembre 2011 =C3=A0 13:47 +0100, bioinfornatics a =C3=A9cri=
t :

 -DD_FLAGS=3D"-g;-w;-d;-m32"


$ CFLAGS=3D"${CFLAGS: -o -g -m32}"
$ cmake -DD_FLAGS=3D"-g;-w;-d;-m32" .

it works ?



 Nov 13 2011



  parent reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com>  writes:


On 11/13/2011 8:14 AM, bioinfornatics wrote:

 Le dimanche 13 novembre 2011 à 13:47 +0100, bioinfornatics a écrit :

 -DD_FLAGS="-g;-w;-d;-m32"


 $ CFLAGS="${CFLAGS: -o -g -m32}"
 $ cmake -DD_FLAGS="-g;-w;-d;-m32" .

 it works ?


Wouldn't that just cause the libs to be built as 32-bit only?  I want 
them built as **both** 32- and 64-bit and the 32-bit ones automatically 
used when building a 32-bit binary, etc.



 Nov 13 2011



  parent reply bioinfornatics <bioinfornatics fedoraproject.rog>  writes:


Le dimanche 13 novembre 2011 =C3=A0 09:35 -0500, dsimcha a =C3=A9crit :

 On 11/13/2011 8:14 AM, bioinfornatics wrote:

 Le dimanche 13 novembre 2011 =C3=A0 13:47 +0100, bioinfornatics a =C3=




=A9crit :

 -DD_FLAGS=3D"-g;-w;-d;-m32"


 $ CFLAGS=3D"${CFLAGS: -o -g -m32}"
 $ cmake -DD_FLAGS=3D"-g;-w;-d;-m32" .

 it works ?


=20
 Wouldn't that just cause the libs to be built as 32-bit only?  I want=20
 them built as **both** 32- and 64-bit and the 32-bit ones automatically=


=20

 used when building a 32-bit binary, etc.


Maybe i have miss understood .
you want build a lib as 32 binary so for this before you need have
phobos and druntime as 32 bits. for build a library as 32 bits with ldc2
build as 64 you need you flag -m32.
by default:
 - ldc2 64 do like -m64
 - ldc2 32 do like -m32
for this reason with ldc 64 your need use -m 32 for force build as 32
binary
but too if on your system you have both 32 and 64 binary it could be
have a problem with /etc/ldc2.conf and his library path.
so maybe each time you want use as 32 or 64 you need set this conf file
to right lib 32 or 64

if they are a good way to do that ...



 Nov 13 2011



  parent  dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com>  writes:


On 11/13/2011 10:58 AM, bioinfornatics wrote:

 Maybe i have miss understood .
 you want build a lib as 32 binary so for this before you need have
 phobos and druntime as 32 bits. for build a library as 32 bits with ldc2
 build as 64 you need you flag -m32.
 by default:
   - ldc2 64 do like -m64
   - ldc2 32 do like -m32


Right, understood.  My point is that there should be a multilib option 
that automates this in the build process.  I've submitted an enhancement 
request with more details:

https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/issues/23



 Nov 13 2011