Re: dmd -o- option meaning changed recently? Now not creating OBJ but also not creating EXE
On Monday, 3 October 2016 at 09:06:32 UTC, Dicebot wrote: Purpose is to skip code generation and only do syntax/semantic validation. Very helpful when testing compiler because: a) it takes less time speeding up overall test suite b) doesn't require runtime static library to succeed, thus simplifying setup Thanks, Dicebot. Only saw your message now, sorry.
Re: dmd -o- option meaning changed recently? Now not creating OBJ but also not creating EXE
On Sunday, 2 October 2016 at 21:05:25 UTC, A D dev wrote: One last point: If that was always the behavior (in all versions from 2010 - or earlier), i.e. -o- generates neither .OBJ nor .EXE, then what is the purpose of the option? does it act as just a syntax check? Purpose is to skip code generation and only do syntax/semantic validation. Very helpful when testing compiler because: a) it takes less time speeding up overall test suite b) doesn't require runtime static library to succeed, thus simplifying setup
Re: dmd -o- option meaning changed recently? Now not creating OBJ but also not creating EXE
On Sunday, 2 October 2016 at 20:47:44 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote: I think you may be misremembering things. I've checked versions back to 2.051 (from 2010, oldest I've got lying around). None of them wrote an executable with -o-. 1. Thanks a lot for all that checking and for your reply. 2. I've checked versions back to 2.051 (from 2010, oldest I've got lying around). Great idea, wish I had thought of that myself. Will do it in future - keep some older versions of the compiler or its zip file, so that I can check for such things if they arise. 3. I think you may be misremembering things. I've checked versions back to 2.051 (from 2010, oldest I've got lying around). None of them wrote an executable with -o-. You may well be right. I did say that in my original post, though not sure why I would misremember. But I acknowledge the possibility. I did find it weird that it would not create BOTH an OBJ and EXE (now, with -o-) and did create only an EXE (before, with -o-), if both those things were actually the case. Because that is too big a thing to happen as a mistake by the D team. And I could not think of a good reason why they might do it on purpose. Could understand if for some reason the automatic .OBJ deletion was suppressed, but no good reason for at the same time preventing the generation of the EXE. One last point: If that was always the behavior (in all versions from 2010 - or earlier), i.e. -o- generates neither .OBJ nor .EXE, then what is the purpose of the option? does it act as just a syntax check? Anyway, moral of the story (for me) is to be more careful next time and record all my actions / command history for cases like this - which I generally try to do, but did not this time.
Re: dmd -o- option meaning changed recently? Now not creating OBJ but also not creating EXE
On 10/02/2016 10:33 PM, A D dev wrote: When I compile single-file D programs, I don't want to keep the generated object file (.OBJ, on Windows). I had checked the D compiler options for this (using dmd --help), and IIRC, a few weeks ago, I had used the -o- option (do not write object file) with a few single-file programs, to disable the creation of the .OBJ file, i.e. only the .EXE file got created - which is what I wanted. I think you may be misremembering things. I've checked versions back to 2.051 (from 2010, oldest I've got lying around). None of them wrote an executable with -o-.
dmd -o- option meaning changed recently? Now not creating OBJ but also not creating EXE
Hi list, I'm in the beginning stages of learning D. Enjoying it, but get some issues now and then. This is one. When I compile single-file D programs, I don't want to keep the generated object file (.OBJ, on Windows). I had checked the D compiler options for this (using dmd --help), and IIRC, a few weeks ago, I had used the -o- option (do not write object file) with a few single-file programs, to disable the creation of the .OBJ file, i.e. only the .EXE file got created - which is what I wanted. Recently I upgraded to the current version of DMD. Then a bit later, I had a need to do that kind of single-file compile again. And when I used the -o- option, I was surprised to see that it did not create the .OBJ file, but did not create the EXE file either. I have checked this today, for example. That made me wonder whether the behavior of the -o- option was changed between versions, and if so, why. Also, somewhere in between the above two events, I think (but am not sure) that I may have got a message (while compiling) that -o- option is not supported (maybe with a compiler version in between the other two ones), or something like it. Unfortunately I did not save that compile command, compiler version and error info (though I should have, and usually do), so I cannot say exactly what that issue was. But mentioning it in case it was right and relevant. Can anyone explain this (assuming I got all my facts right, otherwise please feel free to say how and where I got it wrong - will appreciate either). Thanks.
