www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

D.gnu - object.di error

reply Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> writes:
When trying to add a --disable-libphobos switch to GCC I saw that GCC
already has code that makes it possible to --disable any target
library, although I think this is not documented in the configure --help
output.

Anyway, this means configure --disable-libphobos works fine and builds
a gdc without phobos. Obviously object.di isn't installed then and this
error pops up when trying to compile something:

object.d: Error: module object is in file 'object.d' which cannot be
read

However, for C-like code a completely empty object.di works fine, so
could we disable the object.di detection when -nostdlib or -nophoboslib
is passed, or at least make it a warning instead of an error?

Or add a new switch to ignore a missing object.di? It just doesn't seem
to make sense, that object.di must be there, but can be completely
empty.
Feb 10 2012
next sibling parent Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> writes:
On 10 February 2012 10:36, Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> wrote:
 When trying to add a --disable-libphobos switch to GCC I saw that GCC
 already has code that makes it possible to --disable any target
 library, although I think this is not documented in the configure --help
 output.

 Anyway, this means configure --disable-libphobos works fine and builds
 a gdc without phobos. Obviously object.di isn't installed then and this
 error pops up when trying to compile something:

 object.d: Error: module object is in file 'object.d' which cannot be
 read

 However, for C-like code a completely empty object.di works fine, so
 could we disable the object.di detection when -nostdlib or -nophoboslib
 is passed, or at least make it a warning instead of an error?

 Or add a new switch to ignore a missing object.di? It just doesn't seem
 to make sense, that object.di must be there, but can be completely
 empty.

object.[d, di] is special to the compiler, I think it would be best to _always_ ship it, or have it separate from being directly under the usual /usr/include directories for the standard library. -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
Feb 10 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> writes:
Am Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:12:11 +0000
schrieb Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com>:

 On 10 February 2012 10:36, Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> wrote:
 When trying to add a --disable-libphobos switch to GCC I saw that
 GCC already has code that makes it possible to --disable any target
 library, although I think this is not documented in the configure
 --help output.

 Anyway, this means configure --disable-libphobos works fine and
 builds a gdc without phobos. Obviously object.di isn't installed
 then and this error pops up when trying to compile something:

 object.d: Error: module object is in file 'object.d' which cannot be
 read

 However, for C-like code a completely empty object.di works fine, so
 could we disable the object.di detection when -nostdlib or
 -nophoboslib is passed, or at least make it a warning instead of an
 error?

 Or add a new switch to ignore a missing object.di? It just doesn't
 seem to make sense, that object.di must be there, but can be
 completely empty.

object.[d, di] is special to the compiler, I think it would be best to _always_ ship it, or have it separate from being directly under the usual /usr/include directories for the standard library.

Yep, anything 'class' related won't work without object.di and probably much more. But to make a app using those features link, object_.d needs to be compiled in as well, and that pulls in some druntime dependencies (not too many), so to ship a minimal working object.di we'd also have to ship a minimal 'runtime' library. I'm not sure what's the right decision here, but it'd be great if could make a minimal compiler work for C-like code with minimal dependencies (one object.di file shipped by default definitely counts as minimal dependencies though).
Feb 10 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> writes:
Am Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:36:22 +0100
schrieb Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com>:

 Yep, anything 'class' related won't work without object.di and
 probably much more. But to make a app using those features link,
 object_.d needs to be compiled in as well, and that pulls in some
 druntime dependencies (not too many), so to ship a minimal working
 object.di we'd also have to ship a minimal 'runtime' library. I'm not
 sure what's the right decision here, but it'd be great if could make
 a minimal compiler work for C-like code with minimal dependencies
 (one object.di file shipped by default definitely counts as minimal
 dependencies though).

I guess we should just keep everything as it is. A minimal runtime seems too much effort right now and for testing very basic functionality it's always possible to create an empty object.di.
Feb 13 2012
prev sibling parent Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> writes:
On 13 February 2012 17:55, Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> wrote:
 Am Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:36:22 +0100
 schrieb Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com>:

 Yep, anything 'class' related won't work without object.di and
 probably much more. But to make a app using those features link,
 object_.d needs to be compiled in as well, and that pulls in some
 druntime dependencies (not too many), so to ship a minimal working
 object.di we'd also have to ship a minimal 'runtime' library. I'm not
 sure what's the right decision here, but it'd be great if could make
 a minimal compiler work for C-like code with minimal dependencies
 (one object.di file shipped by default definitely counts as minimal
 dependencies though).

I guess we should just keep everything as it is. A minimal runtime seems too much effort right now and for testing very basic functionality it's always possible to create an empty object.di.

I think --disable-libphobos would go hand in hand with some sort of --default-gdc-lib=FOO. FOO being the default library the driver attempts to link to. This would be for people who have their own substitute for libphobos, be it a mini druntime, tango, or other bespoke library. However the constant should always be that object.di is always shipped, and the compiler *always* depends on that. Regards -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
Feb 13 2012