On Thursday, 21 February 2013 at 17:02:06 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky
wrote:
21-Feb-2013 12:48, Rikki Cattermole пишет:
On Thursday, 21 February 2013 at 00:57:46 UTC, H. S. Teoh
wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 01:55:00AM +0100, Rob T wrote:
On Thursday, 21 February 2013 at 00:48:50 UTC, John Colvin
wrote:
[...]
>>
>>Yes. Shared Libraries Please.
>>
>>Thank you.
>
>+1
>
>It's the most important issue for me. Particular feature
>bugs >can
>be worked around, lack of shared library support is
>>insurmountable
>for many applications.
Yes, it's a major barrier towards adoption in a production
environment. Walter said it's now a priority, so I cross the
fingers
and hope.
[...]
Better yet, maybe more of us should start delving into DMD's
code...
Currently only a small number of people really understand the
compiler,
which has a rather low bus factor. We need to increase that
(not only to
improve the bus factor, but also so that more people are
aware of
compiler issues and hopefully how to fix them).
T
I just want to say, as I have only worked in D for ~6 months
the usage
of Optilink is a real pain.
Checkout this alternative linker:
ftp://ftp.styx.cabel.net/pub/UniLink/
The only issue is that it converts debug info to some other
format compatible with Borland's tools (TDS?).
Couple of days ago I took a strong look at removing 64bit only
code from
Coff support and allowing it to compile 32bit.
I failed yes.
But I definitely will take another look into this.
Hopefully learn wayy more of how it works!
Been there tried that. Wasn't terribly happy with it.
The removal of 64bit code generation in coff format isn't a
killer for me.
But it does make it harder. I can make do without it as I really
only want my apps to be running on newer i5+ gear.
Its more of something to learn the compiler and help the
community out a bit. Since I know that there will be others that
would think this is a killer for not using D.
