• James Dunne (15/15) Apr 13 2005 Why are the .o files from DMD compiler not placed in the source director...
• Kris (16/29) Apr 13 2005 of the
• TechnoZeus (4/36) Apr 14 2005 Yeah, the DMD compiler doesn't do well at all with filenames and directo...
• Chris Sauls (6/12) Apr 14 2005 I thought that was what the -op switch is for?
• James Dunne (5/17) Apr 14 2005 Someone should've sent me a nice RTFM then ;). I didn't even notice tha...
• James Dunne (2/24) Apr 14 2005

James Dunne <jdunne4 bradley.edu> writes:

Why are the .o files from DMD compiler not placed in the source directory of the
source .d file?  This never really bothered me before, but it turns out to be
annoying if you want similarly named modules in different packages (folders).
Granted, I can see that doing a manual cleanup of object files could possibly be
a slight pain if they're placed in separate directories, but I see the pain of
having a couple dozen .o files in the base folder of the project a bit worse.

Yes, I am aware of the -od option for output directories, but it doesn't apply
to an uber monolithic build of passing all source code files in all folders to
one instance of dmd for compiling.

I suppose I could use -od to redirect all objects for different programs under
the base folder to separate directories, but what a pain.  I'd much rather have
the compiler just write the .o file to the same directory as the .d file.

Am I alone on this one or do other people see this as being valuable?

Regards,
James Dunne

"Kris" <fu bar.com> writes:

"James Dunne" <jdunne4 bradley.edu> wrote in message
news:d3krq5$1jv$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Why are the .o files from DMD compiler not placed in the source directory

of the
 source .d file?  This never really bothered me before, but it turns out to

be
 annoying if you want similarly named modules in different packages

(folders).
 Granted, I can see that doing a manual cleanup of object files could

possibly be
 a slight pain if they're placed in separate directories, but I see the

pain of
 having a couple dozen .o files in the base folder of the project a bit

worse.
 Yes, I am aware of the -od option for output directories, but it doesn't

apply
 to an uber monolithic build of passing all source code files in all

folders to
 one instance of dmd for compiling.

 I suppose I could use -od to redirect all objects for different programs

under
 the base folder to separate directories, but what a pain.  I'd much rather

have
 the compiler just write the .o file to the same directory as the .d file.

 Am I alone on this one or do other people see this as being valuable?

You're not alone. I ran into a similar thing with Mango. Using build.exe
takes care of the crap for me now, but that leaves with with a few regrets
over non-ideal module names; ones that had to be changed to avoid object
file collisions.

"TechnoZeus" <TechnoZeus PeoplePC.com> writes:

Yeah, the DMD compiler doesn't do well at all with filenames and directories in
general.  This was the major source of my troubles when I first installed it...
and I never did get it quite to my satisfaction, but I got it working, so for
now I figure that's good enough.  I'm hoping there are plans to revamp that
part of the compiler, and possibly wrap the Windows version in a GUI with
common dialogs for file handling, and user changeable default directores stored
in an ini file (or the registry, although I like the ini file idea better) that
is written by DMD with default values if it doesn't exist.

I didn't have any room left to add one more path to my %path% environment
variable, so I'm sure you can imagine the trouble that caused when I installed
it onto drive F in the DMD folder rather than the DM folder where it was
expecting to exist alongside of the DMC files which I had installed to the DMC
folder rather than the DM folder because I wanted to test DMD and DMC
separately.  Yep... definately an area that desparately needs some serious work.

TZ

"Kris" <fu bar.com> wrote in message news:d3ks9e$1v2$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "James Dunne" <jdunne4 bradley.edu> wrote in message
 news:d3krq5$1jv$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Why are the .o files from DMD compiler not placed in the source directory

 of the
 source .d file?  This never really bothered me before, but it turns out to

 be
 annoying if you want similarly named modules in different packages

 (folders).
 Granted, I can see that doing a manual cleanup of object files could

 possibly be
 a slight pain if they're placed in separate directories, but I see the

 pain of
 having a couple dozen .o files in the base folder of the project a bit

 worse.
 Yes, I am aware of the -od option for output directories, but it doesn't

 apply
 to an uber monolithic build of passing all source code files in all

 folders to
 one instance of dmd for compiling.

 I suppose I could use -od to redirect all objects for different programs

 under
 the base folder to separate directories, but what a pain.  I'd much rather

 have
 the compiler just write the .o file to the same directory as the .d file.

 Am I alone on this one or do other people see this as being valuable?

 You're not alone. I ran into a similar thing with Mango. Using build.exe
 takes care of the crap for me now, but that leaves with with a few regrets
 over non-ideal module names; ones that had to be changed to avoid object
 file collisions.

Chris Sauls <ibisbasenji gmail.com> writes:

I thought that was what the -op switch is for?

[quote]normally the path for .d source files is stripped off when 
generating an object file name. -op will leave it on.[/quote]

Granted I haven't personally used it yet, so maybe not.

-- Chris Sauls

James Dunne wrote:
 Why are the .o files from DMD compiler not placed in the source directory of
the
 source .d file?  This never really bothered me before, but it turns out to be
 annoying if you want similarly named modules in different packages (folders).
 Granted, I can see that doing a manual cleanup of object files could possibly
be
 a slight pain if they're placed in separate directories, but I see the pain of
 having a couple dozen .o files in the base folder of the project a bit worse.

James Dunne <jdunne4 bradley.edu> writes:

Someone should've sent me a nice RTFM then ;).  I didn't even notice that
switch.  I'll check it out and report my findings.

In article <d3l61n$9h2$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Chris Sauls says...
I thought that was what the -op switch is for?

[quote]normally the path for .d source files is stripped off when 
generating an object file name. -op will leave it on.[/quote]

Granted I haven't personally used it yet, so maybe not.

-- Chris Sauls

James Dunne wrote:
 Why are the .o files from DMD compiler not placed in the source directory of
the
 source .d file?  This never really bothered me before, but it turns out to be
 annoying if you want similarly named modules in different packages (folders).
 Granted, I can see that doing a manual cleanup of object files could possibly
be
 a slight pain if they're placed in separate directories, but I see the pain of
 having a couple dozen .o files in the base folder of the project a bit worse.


Regards,
James Dunne

James Dunne <jdunne4 bradley.edu> writes:

Works good.  Use it, Kris and others!

In article <d3l9vc$e01$1 digitaldaemon.com>, James Dunne says...
Someone should've sent me a nice RTFM then ;).  I didn't even notice that
switch.  I'll check it out and report my findings.

In article <d3l61n$9h2$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Chris Sauls says...
I thought that was what the -op switch is for?

[quote]normally the path for .d source files is stripped off when 
generating an object file name. -op will leave it on.[/quote]

Granted I haven't personally used it yet, so maybe not.

-- Chris Sauls

James Dunne wrote:
 Why are the .o files from DMD compiler not placed in the source directory of
the
 source .d file?  This never really bothered me before, but it turns out to be
 annoying if you want similarly named modules in different packages (folders).
 Granted, I can see that doing a manual cleanup of object files could possibly
be
 a slight pain if they're placed in separate directories, but I see the pain of
 having a couple dozen .o files in the base folder of the project a bit worse.


Regards,
James Dunne