www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - -libpath?

reply Jonathan Marler <johnnymarler gmail.com> writes:
What do people think of adding an argument to DMD to add library 
search paths?  Currently the only way I know how to do this would 
be via linker-specific flags, i.e.

GCC: -L-L/usr/lib
MSVC: -L-libpath:C:\mylibs
OPTLINK: -L+C:\mylibs\

NOTE: the optlink version only works if no .def file is 
specified.  If you have a .def file, then you can't add any 
library search paths :)

If we added a new "linker-independent" flag to dmd, then you 
could add paths using the same interface regardless of which 
linker you are using.  I'd expect the argument to be something 
like:

-libpath=<some-path>

The disadvantage is it would be another command line option added 
to DMD.  If there is general agreement that this is a desirable 
feature, I'll go ahead and implement it.
Feb 06
next sibling parent reply Jonathan Marler <johnnymarler gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 6 February 2018 at 17:49:33 UTC, Jonathan Marler 
wrote:
 What do people think of adding an argument to DMD to add 
 library search paths?  Currently the only way I know how to do 
 this would be via linker-specific flags, i.e.

 GCC: -L-L/usr/lib
 MSVC: -L-libpath:C:\mylibs
 OPTLINK: -L+C:\mylibs\

 NOTE: the optlink version only works if no .def file is 
 specified.  If you have a .def file, then you can't add any 
 library search paths :)

 If we added a new "linker-independent" flag to dmd, then you 
 could add paths using the same interface regardless of which 
 linker you are using.  I'd expect the argument to be something 
 like:

 -libpath=<some-path>

 The disadvantage is it would be another command line option 
 added to DMD.  If there is general agreement that this is a 
 desirable feature, I'll go ahead and implement it.
no one responded to this, but I thought I would bump this to the front page to double check if there is any interest in this feature.
Feb 20
parent reply Tony <tonytdominguez aol.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 21 February 2018 at 02:21:14 UTC, Jonathan Marler 
wrote:

 If we added a new "linker-independent" flag to dmd, then you 
 could add paths using the same interface regardless of which 
 linker you are using.  I'd expect the argument to be something 
 like:

 -libpath=<some-path>

 The disadvantage is it would be another command line option 
 added to DMD.  If there is general agreement that this is a 
 desirable feature, I'll go ahead and implement it.
no one responded to this, but I thought I would bump this to the front page to double check if there is any interest in this feature.
There is a tool that lets you call GDC and use DMD command-line options (gdmd). If it doesn't already exist, what about a tool that allows you to call DMD using GDC options (which I think are the same as gcc/g++/clang/clang++)?
Feb 21
parent Tony <tonytdominguez aol.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 21 February 2018 at 10:23:08 UTC, Tony wrote:

 There is a tool that lets you call GDC and use DMD command-line 
 options (gdmd). If it doesn't already exist, what about a tool 
 that allows you to call DMD using GDC options (which I think 
 are the same as gcc/g++/clang/clang++)?
I am mainly thinking about being about to do -L/the/path/to/abc and -labc as is done for the Linux C/C++ compilers.
Feb 21
prev sibling parent reply Mike Franklin <slavo5150 yahoo.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 6 February 2018 at 17:49:33 UTC, Jonathan Marler 
wrote:
 What do people think of adding an argument to DMD to add 
 library search paths?  Currently the only way I know how to do 
 this would be via linker-specific flags, i.e.

 GCC: -L-L/usr/lib
 MSVC: -L-libpath:C:\mylibs
 OPTLINK: -L+C:\mylibs\

 NOTE: the optlink version only works if no .def file is 
 specified.  If you have a .def file, then you can't add any 
 library search paths :)

 If we added a new "linker-independent" flag to dmd, then you 
 could add paths using the same interface regardless of which 
 linker you are using.  I'd expect the argument to be something 
 like:

 -libpath=<some-path>

 The disadvantage is it would be another command line option 
 added to DMD.  If there is general agreement that this is a 
 desirable feature, I'll go ahead and implement it.
Given the current state of things, and the issue described above, I think a linker/platform independent flag would be nice. However, I'd much rather have the compiler just be a compiler and not have to worry about all the intricacies building. IMO, the compiler should get out of the linking business altogether, and just generate object files. A separate build tool could then call the compiler, linker, and whatever else to do builds. But that ship has probably sailed. Mike
Feb 20
parent Jonathan Marler <johnnymarler gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 21 February 2018 at 04:07:38 UTC, Mike Franklin 
wrote:
 On Tuesday, 6 February 2018 at 17:49:33 UTC, Jonathan Marler 
 wrote:
 What do people think of adding an argument to DMD to add 
 library search paths?  Currently the only way I know how to do 
 this would be via linker-specific flags, i.e.

 GCC: -L-L/usr/lib
 MSVC: -L-libpath:C:\mylibs
 OPTLINK: -L+C:\mylibs\

 NOTE: the optlink version only works if no .def file is 
 specified.  If you have a .def file, then you can't add any 
 library search paths :)

 If we added a new "linker-independent" flag to dmd, then you 
 could add paths using the same interface regardless of which 
 linker you are using.  I'd expect the argument to be something 
 like:

 -libpath=<some-path>

 The disadvantage is it would be another command line option 
 added to DMD.  If there is general agreement that this is a 
 desirable feature, I'll go ahead and implement it.
Given the current state of things, and the issue described above, I think a linker/platform independent flag would be nice. However, I'd much rather have the compiler just be a compiler and not have to worry about all the intricacies building. IMO, the compiler should get out of the linking business altogether, and just generate object files. A separate build tool could then call the compiler, linker, and whatever else to do builds. But that ship has probably sailed. Mike
Interesting idea. Actually I don't think it's too late for this. It is too late for DMD to just be a compiler, but that doesn't mean the compiler can't be stripped out as a separate component that DMD interfaces with. This would just make DMD a build tool/compiler/linker wrapper/etc that interfaces with underlying components that could be invoked independently as well. In any case, DMD has evolved to make development more convenient, adding features in a monolithic fashion that could have otherwise been implemented using independent components as part of a suite of compiler software, not unlike LLVM. However, this requires a lot more effort, creating interfaces between each component that then need to be well-defined and maintained...sometimes you just want to provide a feature without going through all the grunt work to make it robust. I think this is a natural evolution of software. Most of it starts monolithic and components are pulled out as needed, and this can still be done for the D compiler.
Feb 21