On Saturday, July 07, 2012 05:45:53 BLM768 wrote: > On Friday, 6 July 2012 at 21:54:15 UTC, 1100110 wrote: > > I swear you guys read my mind sometimes... It's creepy. > > > > I just had this very issue, doing the exact same thing, about > > an hour ago. > > > > Have you tried with -nodefaultlib -noruntime ? Cause that's > > what works for me... > > > > I just got *something* to compile with no runtime or std. > > Whether or not it actually does anything remains to be seen. > > No luck; it still references the runtime. > I've been stubbing out the runtime; it seems to be about done > except for references to some functions I can't find. The symbols > are __moddi3 and __divdi3; I assume they're C math library > functions, as they're generated from code that uses div/mod > operations. It also seems to be unable to properly find > Object.toString() after I changed it to be nothrow, which I > needed to do because I'm stubbing out the exception handling > routines; it seems to have changed the mangling. It's a bit of a > mess in there; I'm glad I don't always have to hack up the > runtime :).
Yes. nothrow is part of the name mangling, because it's part of the signature. In the long run, toString will be @safe const pure nothrow, but it's not there quite yet (const correctness and Object is still being sorted out would be one reason; a number of key string-related functions need to become pure for another). But if the compiler is expecting a specific signature, then that's the signature that you're going to have to give it, or the linker's not going to find the function when it goes to look for it. - Jonathan M Davis
