On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 05:47:28 +0100, H. S. Teoh <hst...@quickfur.ath.cx>
wrote:
On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 07:19:37PM -0800, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Thursday, February 02, 2012 18:34:34 H. S. Teoh wrote:
[...]
> Are there any *good* reasons why druntime and libphobos are not
> dynamically linked? In the long run, we need to support that, since
> otherwise D binaries will be unnecessarily large and the OS won't be
> able to optimize memory usage by sharing library images with
> multiple processes.
Because dmd does not yet support shared libraries on Linux.
[...]
Hmph. Since gdc *does* support shared libraries (I think?), it should be
possible, at least in principle, no?
It does as much as dmd. The issues are with missing druntime support.
I have implemented that but we are still merging.
