On 16 December 2012 02:53, Iain Buclaw <[email protected]> wrote: > On 15 December 2012 18:52, Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Saturday, December 15, 2012 10:44:56 H. S. Teoh wrote: >> > Isn't that just some compiler bugs that sometimes cause certain symbols >> > not to be instantiated in the object file? IMO, such bugs should be >> > fixed in the compiler, rather than force the user to compile one way or >> > another. >> >> Well obviously. They're bugs. Of course they should be fixed. But as long >> as >> they haven't been fixed, we have to work around them, which means >> compiling >> everything at once. >> >> - Jonathan M Davis >> > > > Probably won't be easy (if bug still exists). To describe it (I'll try to > find a working example later) - when compiled separately, both modules > claim the symbol is extern to their scope. However when compiled under one > compilation unit, the compiler has substantially more information regarding > the symbol and sends it to the backend to be written. >
Respective bugs, all been open for around 3 years. http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3745 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3770 -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
