www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 9044] New: Random "Previous Definition Different" optlink failure (looks like a buffer overflow bug somewhere)

reply d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9044

           Summary: Random "Previous Definition Different" optlink failure
                    (looks like a buffer overflow bug somewhere)
           Product: D
           Version: D2
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Windows
            Status: NEW
          Keywords: link-failure
          Severity: regression
          Priority: P1
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com
        ReportedBy: verylonglogin.reg gmail.com



13:57:15 MSK ---
Created an attachment (id=1162)
Testcase

Not sure if it is a dmd regression or dmd changes discovered new optlink bug.

Looks like a buffer overflow bug somewhere as removing almost any definition of
any file makes testcase linkable.

Testcase building output (launching "build.bat"):
---
OPTLINK (R) for Win32  Release 8.00.12
Copyright (C) Digital Mars 1989-2010  All rights reserved.
http://www.digitalmars.com/ctg/optlink.html
xlib.lib(object)  Offset FFD10H Record Type 0091
 Error 1: Previous Definition Different :
_D64D:\D\dmd2head\windows\bin\..\..\src\druntime\import\object.di.5412__ModuleInfoZ
xlib.lib(object)  Offset FFDECH Record Type 00C3
 Error 1: Previous Definition Different :
_D64D:\D\dmd2head\windows\bin\..\..\src\druntime\import\object.di.547__arrayZ
xlib.lib(object)  Offset FFE1EH Record Type 00C3
 Error 1: Previous Definition Different :
_D64D:\D\dmd2head\windows\bin\..\..\src\druntime\import\object.di.548__assertFiZv
xlib.lib(object)  Offset FFE50H Record Type 00C3
 Error 1: Previous Definition Different :
_D64D:\D\dmd2head\windows\bin\..\..\src\druntime\import\object.di.5415__unittest_failFiZv
---

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Nov 18 2012
next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9044


Walter Bright <bugzilla digitalmars.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |bugzilla digitalmars.com
         Resolution|                            |INVALID



04:26:01 PST ---
"previous definition different" means you have the same name defined more than
once.

http://www.digitalmars.com/ctg/OptlinkErrorMessages.html#previous_definition_different

I suspect the problem you are having stems from having a file named "object.d"
in your xlib.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 10 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9044


Denis Shelomovskij <verylonglogin.reg gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|INVALID                     |



19:06:57 MSK ---


 I suspect the problem you are having stems from having a file named "object.d"
 in your xlib.


Are you writing it seriously? I'm not a newbie, I know linker error messages
and I think of what I'm reporting.

Have you looked at testcase? It consists of a.d, b.d, c.d, d.d, and main.d.

Have you read the description? The error disappear if almost any definition of
any file is removed.

Probably you are very tired and need some rest...

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 10 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9044




18:54:07 PST ---
Attempting to extract your test case:

------------------------------
7z l linker-error.7z

7-Zip 9.20  Copyright (c) 1999-2010 Igor Pavlov  2010-11-18

Error:
7-Zip cannot find the code that works with archives.
------------------------------

Please use ordinary zip files or just upload the files themselves.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 22 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9044




12:11:51 MSK ---


 Attempting to extract your test case:
 
 ------------------------------
 7z l linker-error.7z
 
 7-Zip 9.20  Copyright (c) 1999-2010 Igor Pavlov  2010-11-18
 
 Error:
 7-Zip cannot find the code that works with archives.
 ------------------------------
 
 Please use ordinary zip files or just upload the files themselves.


Common! 7-Zip has [one of] the best compression ratio, small compression time,
good GUI and explorer integration, so why not to use it?

Also why not to use the installer? If you really want to do everything
manually, why are you complaining about errors? It is you decision to not use
installer and user-friendly GUI.

But if you for some reason need to use 7z.exe, you also need 7z.dll for "code
that works with archives".

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 23 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9044




12:13:04 PST ---


 Common! 7-Zip has [one of] the best compression ratio, small compression time,
 good GUI and explorer integration, so why not to use it?


Who cares? File size simply no longer matters, especially not 5K. I've already
spend magnitudes more time trying to get it uncompressed than any microseconds
it supposedly saves. I'm not spending any more time on it.



 Also why not to use the installer? If you really want to do everything
 manually, why are you complaining about errors? It is you decision to not use
 installer and user-friendly GUI.


If it's my fault that 7z.exe does not work with 7z files, that makes me even
less interested in 7z.



 But if you for some reason need to use 7z.exe, you also need 7z.dll for "code
 that works with archives".


That's exactly why I don't care to use it. It does not work without mucking
about with it. .zip works everywhere, no issues.

Please upload the files in a usable format. I'm interested in fixing the bug in
this issue. I couldn't be less interested in wrestling with 7z.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 23 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9044


Max Samukha <samukha voliacable.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |samukha voliacable.com



PST ---
That's not funny any more, really. Walter, is it really hard to install 7-zip
extractor? It is ubiquitous and free. There is hardly a single non-lame
programmer who doesn't have it installed. Why irritate an already irritated
user that cares to file bug reports for your half-working thing?

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 23 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9044


bearophile_hugs eml.cc changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

        is obsolete|                            |



Created an attachment (id=1172)
The same files in zip archive




 That's not funny any more, really. Walter, is it really hard to install 7-zip
 extractor? It is ubiquitous and free. There is hardly a single non-lame
 programmer who doesn't have it installed. Why irritate an already irritated
 user that cares to file bug reports for your half-working thing?


I agree with Walter that Bugzilla entries should have attachments in the most
common and user-friendly formats, like zip, unless the file is huge or there
are special situations. So a 7 kb archive does not justify the usage of a less
common archiver.

On the other hand 7z is an archiver better than zip, and progress in computer
science requires a little of extra work to phase out older technologies to
replace them with newer and better. So today installing a working and free
version of 7z should be considered expected by serious computer users.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 23 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9044


Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |andrej.mitrovich gmail.com



13:59:57 PST ---
Please let's not go off-topic.

I can't recreate the linker failure with git-head. I get the obj, lib, map and
exe file with no errors.

This might also be related to Issue 3094, which doesn't have source test-cases
but only object file test-cases. In 3094 linking fails with optlink but it
works with Unilink (minus the missing entry function error which is expected as
none were provided).

Denis do you know which DMD commit you were on when testing this?

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 23 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9044




22:31:26 MSK ---


 Please let's not go off-topic.
 
 I can't recreate the linker failure with git-head. I get the obj, lib, map and
 exe file with no errors.
 
 This might also be related to Issue 3094, which doesn't have source test-cases
 but only object file test-cases. In 3094 linking fails with optlink but it
 works with Unilink (minus the missing entry function error which is expected as
 none were provided).
 
 Denis do you know which DMD commit you were on when testing this?


I confirm that test-case links fine with
04cbe5d8a76186d8327c50eb46a02eb5633d7835 but it is only because this is a
"random" failure. Original code (from my hooking project) still fails to link
with the same error. I don't want to reduce my sources every time dmd changes
so you can use e01eb59f842dfe7a5275d96c420691c4a64f57f4 where provided
test-case triggers the bug or find later one using `git bisect`.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 24 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9044




03:31:43 PST ---
Thank you, bearophile, for uploading the zip.

I can't reproduce a problem, either.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 25 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9044




2012-12-25 20:27:39 MSK ---


 Thank you, bearophile, for uploading the zip.
 
 I can't reproduce a problem, either.


Does it mean that it is a problem for you to work with
e01eb59f842dfe7a5275d96c420691c4a64f57f4 instead of HEAD?

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 25 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9044




03:18:19 PST ---


 Does it mean that it is a problem for you to work with
 e01eb59f842dfe7a5275d96c420691c4a64f57f4 instead of HEAD?


It works with both HEAD and e01eb59f842dfe7a5275d96c420691c4a64f57f4.

I cannot reproduce this problem.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 26 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9044




2012-12-29 08:18:21 MSK ---


 It works with both HEAD and e01eb59f842dfe7a5275d96c420691c4a64f57f4.
 
 I cannot reproduce this problem.


Confirm. Looks like the problem is in my phobos.lib and I can't remember exact
dmd/druntime/phobos commits used to build it.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 28 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9044




2012-12-29 08:23:31 MSK ---
Here is the full testcase (with phobos library file):
http://deoma-cmd.ru/files/other/linker-error-full.zip
(can not upload here because of its size (~1.2 MiB))

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 28 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9044




2012-12-29 08:25:24 MSK ---
To disable the issue and make code linkable, you can e.g. remove any line from
`c.d`.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 28 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9044




20:08:35 PST ---


 Here is the full testcase (with phobos library file):
 http://deoma-cmd.ru/files/other/linker-error-full.zip
 (can not upload here because of its size (~1.2 MiB))


Phobos of which commit?

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jan 12 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9044




2013-01-13 10:00:02 MSK ---


 Phobos of which commit?


As I wrote in comment 13, I can't remember exact dmd/druntime/phobos commits
used to build it.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jan 12 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9044




2013-02-17 10:24:50 MSK ---
Created an attachment (id=1189)
Almost unreduced sources

Fails to link on every dmd/druntime/phobos commit I tried. It fails e.g.:
dmd: 8f9ee7b112c644c4c2b830a4f9c79974196e37d5
druntime: 778d91803e49bc1e829f87014e745e75df84d17d
phobos: 6a3ffa5e136d22b31529e6a3688cb8ce3a5508a0

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 16 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9044




2013-02-22 10:21:20 MSK ---
Can somebody confirm link failure in the last test case?

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 21 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9044


Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |dmitry.olsh gmail.com



20:42:14 PST ---


 Can somebody confirm link failure in the last test case?


I can. For me it fails with stock dmd2.062. Here is the complete log:

Compiling xlib.lib...
Compiling x.obj...
Linking...
OPTLINK (R) for Win32  Release 8.00.12
Copyright (C) Digital Mars 1989-2010  All rights reserved.
http://www.digitalmars.com/ctg/optlink.html
psapi.lib
 Warning 2: File Not Found psapi.lib
xlib.lib(object)  Offset 0B1ACH Record Type 0091
 Error 1: Previous Definition Different :
_D58C:\dmd2\windows\bin\..\..\src\druntime\import\object.di.4612__ModuleInfoZ
xlib.lib(object)  Offset 0B239H Record Type 00C3
 Error 1: Previous Definition Different :
_D58C:\dmd2\windows\bin\..\..\src\druntime\import\object.di.467__arrayZ
xlib.lib(object)  Offset 0B266H Record Type 00C3
 Error 1: Previous Definition Different :
_D58C:\dmd2\windows\bin\..\..\src\druntime\import\object.di.468__assertFiZv
xlib.lib(object)  Offset 0B293H Record Type 00C3
 Error 1: Previous Definition Different :
_D58C:\dmd2\windows\bin\..\..\src\druntime\import\object.di.4615__unittest_failFiZv
Failed.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 24 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9044




2013-03-11 12:56:43 MSK ---
This is definitely a dmd bug, not OPTLINK as it is also triggered when building
a library (when dmd doesn't call linker).

`f` is a member function of a class:
---
void f()
{
    auto a = asJSON(["type": asJSON(to!string(type))]);
    auto b = asJSON(cycleData.map!(d => toJSON(d.height))().array());
    auto c = asJSON(zip(cycleData, sequence!`a[0] + n`(cast()
creationCycle)).filter!`!a[0].available`().map!(a => asJSON(a[1]))().array());
}
---

If any of 3 `f`'s lines are commented out the library compiles fine into `.lib`
file. Otherwise dmd fails with:
---
xxx.lib: Error: multiple definition of object_32e_f8d:
_D65D:\D\dmd2head\windows\bin\..\..\src\druntime\import\object.di.81412__ModuleInfoZ
and object:
_D65D:\D\dmd2head\windows\bin\..\..\src\druntime\import\object.di.81412__ModuleInfoZ
xxx.lib: Error: multiple definition of object_32e_f8d:
_D65D:\D\dmd2head\windows\bin\..\..\src\druntime\import\object.di.8147__arrayZ
and object:
_D65D:\D\dmd2head\windows\bin\..\..\src\druntime\import\object.di.8147__arrayZ
xxx.lib: Error: multiple definition of object_32e_f8d:
_D65D:\D\dmd2head\windows\bin\..\..\src\druntime\import\object.di.8148__assertFiZv
and object:
_D65D:\D\dmd2head\windows\bin\..\..\src\druntime\import\object.di.8148__assertFiZv
xxx.lib: Error: multiple definition of object_32e_f8d:
_D65D:\D\dmd2head\windows\bin\..\..\src\druntime\import\object.di.81415__unittest_failFiZv
and object:
_D65D:\D\dmd2head\windows\bin\..\..\src\druntime\import\object.di.81415__unittest_failFiZv
---

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 11 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9044


Denis Shelomovskij <verylonglogin.reg gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|Random "Previous Definition |dmd sometimes produces
                   |Different" optlink failure  |object files with multiple
                   |(looks like a buffer        |definitions
                   |overflow bug somewhere)     |
           Severity|regression                  |critical



2013-03-11 13:02:26 MSK ---
Looks like this is not a regression, this bug is triggered from time to time on
the same code because of druntime/phobos changes.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 11 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9044




2013-03-14 18:29:41 MSK ---
Ping.

This is a dmd issue, not OPTLINK one. And the fact it is not a REGRESSION
doesn't mean we should continue releasing dmd with it included as it even worse
than a regression as it is triggered randomly.

Personally I already suffer enough from OPTLINK and the fact dmd also produces
corrupted object files looks too cruel. With all this words about language
stability we have this issue which may accidentally brake build of every code
base on every platform because of a any small code change.

I worked on only two non-toy D executables for the last 6 month and both are
[partially] blocked because of this. For now I abandoned the first project and
have managed to juggle with files to "detrigger" this issue in second one.

So I'm completely missing the point where are these issues with higher priority
than this, abandoned, unvoted one? Probably I'm the most luckless D user who
always suffer from these linking failures...

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 14 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9044




2013-04-30 16:07:00 MSD ---
Any plans on fixing this? In my unlucky hands even VisualD's cpp2d fails to
build in debug mode because of the issue...

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Apr 30 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9044


Rainer Schuetze <r.sagitario gmx.de> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |r.sagitario gmx.de



PDT ---
I very much suspect that this is caused by the generated internal object file
names of a library or other generated identifiers that are assumed to be
unique, but clearly this is not guaranteed when building libraries in separate
build steps.

I tried to generate a small test on that suspicion some time ago, but it didn't
trigger a linker error then. I have figured it out now:

////////////////////////
module ab;

struct AB
{
     int a;
    int len() { return (new AB).a; }
}

unittest
{
}

////////////////////////
module ba;

struct BA
{
    int b;
    int len() { return (new BA).b; }
}

unittest
{
}

////////////////////////
import ab;
import ba;

int main()
{
    AB ab;
    BA ba;
    return ab.len() + ba.len();
}
////////////////////////

now building with dmd 2.062:

dmd -lib -of"alib.lib" ab.d
dmd -lib -of"blib.lib" ba.d
dmd -c main.d
dmd main.obj alib.lib blib.lib

yields:

OPTLINK (R) for Win32  Release 8.00.12
Copyright (C) Digital Mars 1989-2010  All rights reserved.
http://www.digitalmars.com/ctg/optlink.html
blib.lib(object)  Offset 013AEH Record Type 0091
 Error 1: Previous Definition Different :
_D59c:\l\dmd2\windows\bin\..\..\src\druntime\import\object.di.412__ModuleInfoZ
blib.lib(object)  Offset 0143CH Record Type 00C3
 Error 1: Previous Definition Different :
_D59c:\l\dmd2\windows\bin\..\..\src\druntime\import\object.di.47__arrayZ
blib.lib(object)  Offset 01469H Record Type 00C3
 Error 1: Previous Definition Different :
_D59c:\l\dmd2\windows\bin\..\..\src\druntime\import\object.di.48__assertFiZv
blib.lib(object)  Offset 01496H Record Type 00C3
 Error 1: Previous Definition Different :
_D59c:\l\dmd2\windows\bin\..\..\src\druntime\import\object.di.415__unittest_failFiZv
blib.lib(object)  Offset 00F6EH Record Type 0091
 Error 1: Previous Definition Different :
_D59c:\l\dmd2\windows\bin\..\..\src\druntime\import\object.di.312__ModuleInfoZ
blib.lib(object)  Offset 0103BH Record Type 00C3
 Error 1: Previous Definition Different :
_D59c:\l\dmd2\windows\bin\..\..\src\druntime\import\object.di.37__arrayZ
blib.lib(object)  Offset 01068H Record Type 00C3
 Error 1: Previous Definition Different :
_D59c:\l\dmd2\windows\bin\..\..\src\druntime\import\object.di.38__assertFiZv
blib.lib(object)  Offset 01095H Record Type 00C3
 Error 1: Previous Definition Different :
_D59c:\l\dmd2\windows\bin\..\..\src\druntime\import\object.di.315__unittest_failFiZv

also happens with current git-head.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
May 20 2013
prev sibling next sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9044




2013-05-27 12:07:47 MSD ---


 I very much suspect that this is caused by the generated internal object file
 names of a library or other generated identifiers that are assumed to be
 unique, but clearly this is not guaranteed when building libraries in separate
 build steps.


It also fails in dmd (not OPTLINK) when a library is generated using a single
`dmd -lib ...` call (see Comment 21).

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
May 27 2013
prev sibling parent d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9044


Martin Nowak <code dawg.eu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |code dawg.eu
         Resolution|                            |DUPLICATE



*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of issue 6461 ***

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
May 30 2013