• A Guy With a Question (16/16) Nov 25 2017 Hi,
• Mike Parker (9/15) Nov 25 2017 You don't link static libraries with each other. They're just
• A Guy With a Question (2/19) Nov 25 2017 Yes. That also worked when I tried it.
• A Guy With a Question (6/29) Nov 25 2017 Also when I said library, I'm actually talking about the dlls
• A Guy With a Question (4/34) Nov 25 2017 Actually ignore that last comment, they are producing libs not
• Mike Parker (6/8) Nov 25 2017 On Windows, when building a DLL, compilers typically produce an
• Jacob Carlborg (9/16) Nov 26 2017 For completeness:
• b2.temp gmx.com (2/8) Feb 10 2018 These flags should be passed to ld by DMD i think
• Basile B. (3/13) Feb 11 2018 The flags could be put before and after this loop:

A Guy With a Question <aguywithaquestion gmail.com> writes:

Hi,

So I got this working, I would just like to see if I have done 
this correctly or if it's just working out of a fluke. I am using 
Visual D. Lets say I have four projects:

Library 1: Common Library
Library 2: Base Service Library - Dependent on the Common Library.
Library 3: More Specified Service Library - Dependent on the base 
service library.
Final Exe - Dependent on Library 3.

^^^

That's how I set up the linking in Visual D. Everything builds. 
But should the final exe try to link against all 3 libraries, 
library 3 link to library 1 & 2 and library 2 link to library 1 
(also builds)? Or is the single dependence chain I created work 
without quirks?

Is there a functional difference at the end of the day?

Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:

On Saturday, 25 November 2017 at 22:18:52 UTC, A Guy With a 
Question wrote:

 That's how I set up the linking in Visual D. Everything builds. 
 But should the final exe try to link against all 3 libraries, 
 library 3 link to library 1 & 2 and library 2 link to library 1 
 (also builds)? Or is the single dependence chain I created work 
 without quirks?

 Is there a functional difference at the end of the day?

You don't link static libraries with each other. They're just 
collections of object files intended to be linked with an 
executable or a DLL. Order doesn't matter for optlink or the MS 
linker, but other linkers, such as ld (which is commonly used 
with GCC) require the libraries be passed in according to 
dependencies, e.g. dependent libraries come before their 
dependencies. Not sure if the LLVM linker retains that behavior.

A Guy With a Question <aguywithaquestion gmail.com> writes:

On Saturday, 25 November 2017 at 22:31:10 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 On Saturday, 25 November 2017 at 22:18:52 UTC, A Guy With a 
 Question wrote:

 That's how I set up the linking in Visual D. Everything 
 builds. But should the final exe try to link against all 3 
 libraries, library 3 link to library 1 & 2 and library 2 link 
 to library 1 (also builds)? Or is the single dependence chain 
 I created work without quirks?

 Is there a functional difference at the end of the day?

 You don't link static libraries with each other. They're just 
 collections of object files intended to be linked with an 
 executable or a DLL. Order doesn't matter for optlink or the MS 
 linker, but other linkers, such as ld (which is commonly used 
 with GCC) require the libraries be passed in according to 
 dependencies, e.g. dependent libraries come before their 
 dependencies. Not sure if the LLVM linker retains that behavior.

Yes. That also worked when I tried it.

A Guy With a Question <aguywithaquestion gmail.com> writes:

On Saturday, 25 November 2017 at 22:36:32 UTC, A Guy With a 
Question wrote:
 On Saturday, 25 November 2017 at 22:31:10 UTC, Mike Parker 
 wrote:
 On Saturday, 25 November 2017 at 22:18:52 UTC, A Guy With a 
 Question wrote:

 That's how I set up the linking in Visual D. Everything 
 builds. But should the final exe try to link against all 3 
 libraries, library 3 link to library 1 & 2 and library 2 link 
 to library 1 (also builds)? Or is the single dependence chain 
 I created work without quirks?

 Is there a functional difference at the end of the day?

 You don't link static libraries with each other. They're just 
 collections of object files intended to be linked with an 
 executable or a DLL. Order doesn't matter for optlink or the 
 MS linker, but other linkers, such as ld (which is commonly 
 used with GCC) require the libraries be passed in according to 
 dependencies, e.g. dependent libraries come before their 
 dependencies. Not sure if the LLVM linker retains that 
 behavior.

 Yes. That also worked when I tried it.

Also when I said library, I'm actually talking about the dlls 
that are produced. I essentially have four projects in Visual D. 
Each produces a binary. 3 produce dlls and the final created the 
end exe.

A Guy With a Question <aguywithaquestion gmail.com> writes:

On Saturday, 25 November 2017 at 22:40:49 UTC, A Guy With a 
Question wrote:
 On Saturday, 25 November 2017 at 22:36:32 UTC, A Guy With a 
 Question wrote:
 On Saturday, 25 November 2017 at 22:31:10 UTC, Mike Parker 
 wrote:
 On Saturday, 25 November 2017 at 22:18:52 UTC, A Guy With a 
 Question wrote:

 That's how I set up the linking in Visual D. Everything 
 builds. But should the final exe try to link against all 3 
 libraries, library 3 link to library 1 & 2 and library 2 
 link to library 1 (also builds)? Or is the single dependence 
 chain I created work without quirks?

 Is there a functional difference at the end of the day?

 You don't link static libraries with each other. They're just 
 collections of object files intended to be linked with an 
 executable or a DLL. Order doesn't matter for optlink or the 
 MS linker, but other linkers, such as ld (which is commonly 
 used with GCC) require the libraries be passed in according 
 to dependencies, e.g. dependent libraries come before their 
 dependencies. Not sure if the LLVM linker retains that 
 behavior.

 Yes. That also worked when I tried it.

 Also when I said library, I'm actually talking about the dlls 
 that are produced. I essentially have four projects in Visual 
 D. Each produces a binary. 3 produce dlls and the final created 
 the end exe.

Actually ignore that last comment, they are producing libs not 
dlls. Funny how all three ways of linking work...

Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:

On Saturday, 25 November 2017 at 22:43:30 UTC, A Guy With a 
Question wrote:

 Actually ignore that last comment, they are producing libs not 
 dlls. Funny how all three ways of linking work...

On Windows, when building a DLL, compilers typically produce an 
"import library" alongside it, which has a .lib extension like 
static libraries. The executable links with the import library, 
but needs to have the DLL on the system path at runtime.

Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:

On 2017-11-25 23:31, Mike Parker wrote:

 You don't link static libraries with each other. They're just 
 collections of object files intended to be linked with an executable or 
 a DLL. Order doesn't matter for optlink or the MS linker, but other 
 linkers, such as ld (which is commonly used with GCC) require the 
 libraries be passed in according to dependencies, e.g. dependent 
 libraries come before their dependencies. Not sure if the LLVM linker 
 retains that behavior.

For completeness:

For "ld" on macOS the order does not matter. For "ld" on Linux the order 
does matter, but, if necessary, the following flags can be used to link 
libraries in any order: "--start-group" and "--end-group". Those flag 
will cause the linker to search the libraries repeatedly to resolve 
undefined symbols.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

b2.temp gmx.com <b2.temp gmx.com> writes:

On Sunday, 26 November 2017 at 11:15:58 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 On 2017-11-25 23:31, Mike Parker wrote:

 For "ld" on macOS the order does not matter. For "ld" on Linux 
 the order does matter, but, if necessary, the following flags 
 can be used to link libraries in any order: "--start-group" and 
 "--end-group". Those flag will cause the linker to search the 
 libraries repeatedly to resolve undefined symbols.

These flags should be  passed to ld by DMD i think

Basile B. <b2.temp gmx.com> writes:

On Sunday, 11 February 2018 at 01:38:41 UTC, b2.temp wrote:
 On Sunday, 26 November 2017 at 11:15:58 UTC, Jacob Carlborg 
 wrote:
 On 2017-11-25 23:31, Mike Parker wrote:

 For "ld" on macOS the order does not matter. For "ld" on Linux 
 the order does matter, but, if necessary, the following flags 
 can be used to link libraries in any order: "--start-group" 
 and "--end-group". Those flag will cause the linker to search 
 the libraries repeatedly to resolve undefined symbols.

 These flags should be  passed to ld by DMD i think

The flags could be put before and after this loop:
https://github.com/dlang/dmd/blob/master/src/dmd/link.d#L602