On Wednesday, 22 February 2012 at 22:44:15 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 22, 2012 23:33:57 Bernard Helyer wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 February 2012 at 22:05:51 UTC, Jonathan M
Davis
wrote:
> Then what happens when you have
>
> dmc -c foo/a.d foo_a.d
Good point.
> Regardless, I really wouldn't like the idea of screwing with
> the object file
> names to try and avoid collisions.
Well, the thing is in this case everything is being passed to
the
compiler. It knows the names of everything. But yeah, I think
complaining is fine _if_ dmd allows individual modules to be
named explicitly. Otherwise, all in one is good. But really,
even
prefixing it would be better than what we have now. What about
'module.foo_a.o' if foo_a isn't in a package?
I really think that it should either put it in a single object
file or complain
and disallow it. Really, the correct way to build such modules
is to put each
object file in a directory hierarchy which matches the modules.
Anything else
is a mess. But that's the job a build tool, not the compiler.
Except DMD is faster by a factor of 10 when passing it all at
once.
