On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 18:41:50 +0400, Sergey Gromov wrote: > Sun, 2 Aug 2009 11:18:24 +0000 (UTC), teo wrote: > >> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 02:18:28 +0400, Sergey Gromov wrote: >> >>> My guess is that test.di is exactly the same as test.d because all the >>> functions are small. Therefore compiling 'dmd prog.d test.di' >>> resolves all symbols statically and the .so is simply not linked. >>> Does your 'prog' have any unresolved symbols in its symbol table? >> >> It looks like this is the case. I found following in the symbols: >> 0804b8cc T _D4test6testMeFZi >> 0804b8d8 T _D4test9testClassFiZC4test4Test >> >> The whole nm output is too long, but if you want I can send it to you. >> >> When I use the *--undefined-only* option I get: $ nm -u prog >> [snip] > > All unresolved symbols seem to be in glibc. > Yes.
> I've filed a bug: > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3226 I don't have the warning you mention.
