• Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> Sep 05 2010
• Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> Sep 05 2010
• =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> Sep 05 2010
• Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> Sep 06 2010
• =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> Sep 06 2010
• KennyTM~ <kennytm gmail.com> Sep 05 2010
• Stanislav Blinov <stanislav.blinov gmail.com> Sep 06 2010
• "Simen kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras gmail.com> Sep 06 2010
• "Simen kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras gmail.com> Sep 06 2010
• klickverbot <see klickverbot.at> Sep 06 2010

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

We already have:

     libphobos.a   Phobos 1, 32 bit
     libphobos2.a  Phobos 2, 32 bit

What should the 64 bit Phobos be named?

Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:

On 9/5/2010 9:39 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
 We already have:
 
     libphobos.a   Phobos 1, 32 bit
     libphobos2.a  Phobos 2, 32 bit
 
 What should the 64 bit Phobos be named?


No change in name, change in directory holding it.

ie.. lib64/libphobos*

That's what most major distributions do.

For example:

# a 64 bit linux box
$ ls -ld /lib*
drwxr-xr-x 11 root root 12288 Jul 23 17:36 /lib
drwxr-xr-x  2 root root  4096 May 30 13:06 /lib32
lrwxrwxrwx  1 root root     4 Jan 23  2009 /lib64 -> /lib


# a 32 bit linux box
$ ls -ld /lib*
drwxr-xr-x 21 root root 12288 2010-08-17 16:03 /lib
drwxr-xr-x  2 root root  4096 2010-08-17 16:02 /lib64

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:

Brad Roberts wrote:
 On 9/5/2010 9:39 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
 We already have:

     libphobos.a   Phobos 1, 32 bit
     libphobos2.a  Phobos 2, 32 bit

 What should the 64 bit Phobos be named?


 No change in name, change in directory holding it.
 
 ie.. lib64/libphobos*
 
 That's what most major distributions do.


Or even no change at all, like a multilib OS does:
"Architectures in the fat file: /usr/lib/libgphobos.a are: ppc ppc64 
i386 x86_64"

But since it's just a static library (still, right?)
it's more a question of directories and -L-L DFLAGS

--anders

Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:

On 2010-09-06 08:24, Anders F Björklund wrote:
 Brad Roberts wrote:
 On 9/5/2010 9:39 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
 We already have:

 libphobos.a Phobos 1, 32 bit
 libphobos2.a Phobos 2, 32 bit

 What should the 64 bit Phobos be named?


 No change in name, change in directory holding it.

 ie.. lib64/libphobos*

 That's what most major distributions do.


 Or even no change at all, like a multilib OS does:
 "Architectures in the fat file: /usr/lib/libgphobos.a are: ppc ppc64
 i386 x86_64"

 But since it's just a static library (still, right?)
 it's more a question of directories and -L-L DFLAGS

 --anders


Tango can be built as a dynamic library on Mac OS X since a while, just 
waiting for Sean to apply the rest of the patch for druntime (half of 
the patch is already applied by Walter).

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:

Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 But since it's just a static library (still, right?)
 it's more a question of directories and -L-L DFLAGS


 Tango can be built as a dynamic library on Mac OS X since a while, just 
 waiting for Sean to apply the rest of the patch for druntime (half of 
 the patch is already applied by Walter).


Sure, gphobos can also be built dynamically and as 64-bit.

But I meant that the name doesn't matter for a static lib.

For the shared library, all kinds of fun ABI issues apply.

--anders

KennyTM~ <kennytm gmail.com> writes:

On Sep 6, 10 12:39, Walter Bright wrote:
 We already have:

 libphobos.a Phobos 1, 32 bit
 libphobos2.a Phobos 2, 32 bit

 What should the 64 bit Phobos be named?


There is no need to change the name on Mac OS X because of fat binary.

Stanislav Blinov <stanislav.blinov gmail.com> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:
 We already have:
 
     libphobos.a   Phobos 1, 32 bit
     libphobos2.a  Phobos 2, 32 bit
 
 What should the 64 bit Phobos be named?


I'd agree that yet another name is not needed, but just for fun - you 
have another moon :) That name would fully reflect feelings of people 
facing D anew when they look at things like std.algorithm or std.range :)

"Simen kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras gmail.com> writes:

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 09:55:42 +0200, Stanislav Blinov  
<stanislav.blinov gmail.com> wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:
 We already have:
      libphobos.a   Phobos 1, 32 bit
     libphobos2.a  Phobos 2, 32 bit
  What should the 64 bit Phobos be named?


 I'd agree that yet another name is not needed, but just for fun - you  
 have another moon :) That name would fully reflect feelings of people  
 facing D anew when they look at things like std.algorithm or std.range :)


We should have chosen a planet with more moons, to be forward-compatible
- for what happens when D3 (or 128-bit, to stay more on topic) arrives?

There was a Deimos project for D already, available on
http://dsource.org/projects/deimos. It is however abandoned, so one could
conceivably take their name.

Now, the main problem is that we are currently talking only about what
the 64-bit version of the library should be called, and calling that
Deimos and the 32-bit Phobos is bound to confuse people.

-- 
Simen

"Simen kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras gmail.com> writes:

Simen kjaeraas <simen.kjaras gmail.com> wrote:

 On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 09:55:42 +0200, Stanislav Blinov  
 <stanislav.blinov gmail.com> wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:
 We already have:
      libphobos.a   Phobos 1, 32 bit
     libphobos2.a  Phobos 2, 32 bit
  What should the 64 bit Phobos be named?


 I'd agree that yet another name is not needed, but just for fun - you  
 have another moon :) That name would fully reflect feelings of people  
 facing D anew when they look at things like std.algorithm or std.range  
 :)


 We should have chosen a planet with more moons, to be forward-compatible
 - for what happens when D3 (or 128-bit, to stay more on topic) arrives?

 There was a Deimos project for D already, available on
 http://dsource.org/projects/deimos. It is however abandoned, so one could
 conceivably take their name.

 Now, the main problem is that we are currently talking only about what
 the 64-bit version of the library should be called, and calling that
 Deimos and the 32-bit Phobos is bound to confuse people.


Oh, and for the actual posed question - I think lib64/libphobos2.a is the
best.

-- 
Simen

klickverbot <see klickverbot.at> writes:

Please, please just call it libphobos2.a on Linux and move it to the 
64bit library directory. On OS X, one might want to build it as 
universal binary, so no special casing needed there either. On Windows 
it is installed to the DMD directory anyway, so this is probably no 
issue either (3d-bit-dmd/lib = 32 bit Phobos, 64-bit-dmd/lib = 64 bit 
Phobos), but I am no Windows guy.