www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - State of LDC

reply Benjamin Thaut <code benjamin-thaut.de> writes:
Is the LDC project dead? the last update I found is from 2010.
-- 
Kind Regards
Benjamin Thaut
Nov 10 2011
next sibling parent reply Jude Young <10equals2 gmail.com> writes:
On Fri 11 Nov 2011 01:13:32 AM CST, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
 Is the LDC project dead? the last update I found is from 2010.

Thanks to Trass3r via stackoverflow. https://bitbucket.org/lindquist/ldc/changesets Looks like there are some commits a few months back. It might have died in the meantime though
Nov 10 2011
next sibling parent reply =?UTF-8?B?QWxleCBSw7hubmUgUGV0ZXJzZW4=?= <xtzgzorex gmail.com> writes:
On 11-11-2011 08:22, Jude Young wrote:
 On Fri 11 Nov 2011 01:13:32 AM CST, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
 Is the LDC project dead? the last update I found is from 2010.

Thanks to Trass3r via stackoverflow. https://bitbucket.org/lindquist/ldc/changesets Looks like there are some commits a few months back. It might have died in the meantime though

It is on GitHub: https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc - Alex
Nov 11 2011
parent reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
On 11/11/2011 3:57 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
 On 11-11-2011 08:22, Jude Young wrote:
 On Fri 11 Nov 2011 01:13:32 AM CST, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
 Is the LDC project dead? the last update I found is from 2010.

Thanks to Trass3r via stackoverflow. https://bitbucket.org/lindquist/ldc/changesets Looks like there are some commits a few months back. It might have died in the meantime though

It is on GitHub: https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc - Alex

This needs to be publicized somewhere. This whole time I thought LDC was dead because I was looking on Thomas Lindquist's BitBucket repo, which hasn't been updated since July.
Nov 11 2011
parent reply =?UTF-8?B?QWxleCBSw7hubmUgUGV0ZXJzZW4=?= <xtzgzorex gmail.com> writes:
On 11-11-2011 14:35, dsimcha wrote:
 On 11/11/2011 3:57 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
 On 11-11-2011 08:22, Jude Young wrote:
 On Fri 11 Nov 2011 01:13:32 AM CST, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
 Is the LDC project dead? the last update I found is from 2010.

Thanks to Trass3r via stackoverflow. https://bitbucket.org/lindquist/ldc/changesets Looks like there are some commits a few months back. It might have died in the meantime though

It is on GitHub: https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc - Alex

This needs to be publicized somewhere. This whole time I thought LDC was dead because I was looking on Thomas Lindquist's BitBucket repo, which hasn't been updated since July.

Come to think of it, I don't think it was announced anywhere but on IRC. There was, however, an NG post a while back, asking whether LDC could be hosted under the DPL organization on GitHub (it didn't get much of any attention...). - Alex
Nov 11 2011
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 11/11/2011 5:43 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
 On 11-11-2011 14:35, dsimcha wrote:
 On 11/11/2011 3:57 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
 On 11-11-2011 08:22, Jude Young wrote:
 On Fri 11 Nov 2011 01:13:32 AM CST, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
 Is the LDC project dead? the last update I found is from 2010.

Thanks to Trass3r via stackoverflow. https://bitbucket.org/lindquist/ldc/changesets Looks like there are some commits a few months back. It might have died in the meantime though

It is on GitHub: https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc - Alex

This needs to be publicized somewhere. This whole time I thought LDC was dead because I was looking on Thomas Lindquist's BitBucket repo, which hasn't been updated since July.

Come to think of it, I don't think it was announced anywhere but on IRC. There was, however, an NG post a while back, asking whether LDC could be hosted under the DPL organization on GitHub (it didn't get much of any attention...).

I hadn't noticed that request. I don't know if it is a good idea or not to put it under d-programming-language. One issue is it might run out of space for the free version :-) Another might be the implication of who is in charge of it. Anyhow, may I make a suggestion? I tried to make a deimos project under github, but that was taken. So instead, I thought of d-programming-deimos, which seems perfect. Can I suggest renaming ldc-developers to d-programming-ldc? I think that would help tie the D related projects together. Right now, someone looking at "ldc-developers" would have no idea it is related to D. Prefixing D projects with "d-programming" would help out with brand visibility.
Nov 11 2011
next sibling parent =?UTF-8?B?QWxleCBSw7hubmUgUGV0ZXJzZW4=?= <xtzgzorex gmail.com> writes:
On 11-11-2011 19:31, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 11/11/2011 5:43 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
 On 11-11-2011 14:35, dsimcha wrote:
 On 11/11/2011 3:57 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
 On 11-11-2011 08:22, Jude Young wrote:
 On Fri 11 Nov 2011 01:13:32 AM CST, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
 Is the LDC project dead? the last update I found is from 2010.

Thanks to Trass3r via stackoverflow. https://bitbucket.org/lindquist/ldc/changesets Looks like there are some commits a few months back. It might have died in the meantime though

It is on GitHub: https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc - Alex

This needs to be publicized somewhere. This whole time I thought LDC was dead because I was looking on Thomas Lindquist's BitBucket repo, which hasn't been updated since July.

Come to think of it, I don't think it was announced anywhere but on IRC. There was, however, an NG post a while back, asking whether LDC could be hosted under the DPL organization on GitHub (it didn't get much of any attention...).

I hadn't noticed that request. I don't know if it is a good idea or not to put it under d-programming-language. One issue is it might run out of space for the free version :-) Another might be the implication of who is in charge of it.

I was in contact with GitHub some months back, and the space limit is actually a soft limit - for open source projects, they don't actually care if we exceed the limit (as long as we aren't doing anything obviously evil of course :)). I think you could use the teams system in organizations to deal with admin access to the repos.
 Anyhow, may I make a suggestion? I tried to make a deimos project under
 github, but that was taken. So instead, I thought of
 d-programming-deimos, which seems perfect. Can I suggest renaming
 ldc-developers to d-programming-ldc? I think that would help tie the D
 related projects together.

 Right now, someone looking at "ldc-developers" would have no idea it is
 related to D.

 Prefixing D projects with "d-programming" would help out with brand
 visibility.

Makes sense. - Alex
Nov 11 2011
prev sibling parent reply David Nadlinger <see klickverbot.at> writes:
[I can only speak for myself as a contributor to LDC, other devs might 
have other opinions]

On 11/11/11 7:31 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 11/11/2011 5:43 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
 On 11-11-2011 14:35, dsimcha wrote:
 This needs to be publicized somewhere. This whole time I thought LDC was
 dead because I was looking on Thomas Lindquist's BitBucket repo, which
 hasn't been updated since July.

Come to think of it, I don't think it was announced anywhere but on IRC.


It originally wasn't announced on the NG because the move was not yet complete, but then, progress in that regard somewhat stalled, leading to the awkward situation we are having now. This definitely needs improvement asap, I'll see what I can do over the next few days.
 There was, however, an NG post a while back, asking whether LDC could be
 hosted under
 the DPL organization on GitHub (it didn't get much of any attention...).

I hadn't noticed that request.

I only barely remember something related as well – I don't think it was actually a LDC committer asking…
 I don't know if it is a good idea or not to put it under
 d-programming-language. One issue is it might run out of space for the
 free version :-) Another might be the implication of who is in charge of
 it.

I don't know if it's a good idea either. Historically, so to say, LDC was always a separate project, and some of the reasons for that certainly don't apply any longer. On the one hand, it would certainly make it easier for people to find the project, and since LDC uses the official frontend, it's probably not even that bad of a fit. On the other hand, though, I have to admit (nolens volens), that LDC is usually less well maintained than DMD and Phobos, and as such, it might not be the best idea to include it in the official organization. Furthermore, having it as a separate organization probably fits the usual GitHub collaboration model better, since we can have our own druntime/Phobos forks – intra-repo pull requests are perfectly possible, but blurring the line between what's actively developed DMD and what's release-tracking LDC stuff could be bad.
 Anyhow, may I make a suggestion? I tried to make a deimos project under
 github, but that was taken. So instead, I thought of
 d-programming-deimos, which seems perfect. Can I suggest renaming
 ldc-developers to d-programming-ldc? I think that would help tie the D
 related projects together.

 Right now, someone looking at "ldc-developers" would have no idea it is
 related to D.

 Prefixing D projects with "d-programming" would help out with brand
 visibility.

When we started the move to GitHub, I tried to create an »ldc« org, but it was already taken. The best alternative we could come up with on IRC was ldc-developers, which we then decided to use. Regarding d-programming-ldc, I am not much sure if it would really change anything, but if it is generally agreed on, fine with me. Not having formally announced the move could actually come in handy here, since the only thing that depends on the path (besides quite a number of local user repos) is probably the Fedora packaging script. In any case, I think the most important thing here is to reach consensus as fast as possible here, so that we can restore LDC into a state where it isn't vastly undersold simply because of one or two days of documentation/publicity work… David
Nov 11 2011
next sibling parent =?UTF-8?B?QWxleCBSw7hubmUgUGV0ZXJzZW4=?= <xtzgzorex gmail.com> writes:
On 11-11-2011 21:06, David Nadlinger wrote:
 [I can only speak for myself as a contributor to LDC, other devs might
 have other opinions]

 On 11/11/11 7:31 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
 On 11/11/2011 5:43 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
 On 11-11-2011 14:35, dsimcha wrote:
 This needs to be publicized somewhere. This whole time I thought LDC
 was
 dead because I was looking on Thomas Lindquist's BitBucket repo, which
 hasn't been updated since July.

Come to think of it, I don't think it was announced anywhere but on IRC.


It originally wasn't announced on the NG because the move was not yet complete, but then, progress in that regard somewhat stalled, leading to the awkward situation we are having now. This definitely needs improvement asap, I'll see what I can do over the next few days.
 There was, however, an NG post a while back, asking whether LDC could be
 hosted under
 the DPL organization on GitHub (it didn't get much of any attention...).

I hadn't noticed that request.

I only barely remember something related as well – I don't think it was actually a LDC committer asking…

It was bioinfornatics, IIRC. He also did talk about this on IRC.
 I don't know if it is a good idea or not to put it under
 d-programming-language. One issue is it might run out of space for the
 free version :-) Another might be the implication of who is in charge of
 it.

I don't know if it's a good idea either. Historically, so to say, LDC was always a separate project, and some of the reasons for that certainly don't apply any longer. On the one hand, it would certainly make it easier for people to find the project, and since LDC uses the official frontend, it's probably not even that bad of a fit. On the other hand, though, I have to admit (nolens volens), that LDC is usually less well maintained than DMD and Phobos, and as such, it might not be the best idea to include it in the official organization. Furthermore, having it as a separate organization probably fits the usual GitHub collaboration model better, since we can have our own druntime/Phobos forks – intra-repo pull requests are perfectly possible, but blurring the line between what's actively developed DMD and what's release-tracking LDC stuff could be bad.
 Anyhow, may I make a suggestion? I tried to make a deimos project under
 github, but that was taken. So instead, I thought of
 d-programming-deimos, which seems perfect. Can I suggest renaming
 ldc-developers to d-programming-ldc? I think that would help tie the D
 related projects together.

 Right now, someone looking at "ldc-developers" would have no idea it is
 related to D.

 Prefixing D projects with "d-programming" would help out with brand
 visibility.

When we started the move to GitHub, I tried to create an »ldc« org, but it was already taken. The best alternative we could come up with on IRC was ldc-developers, which we then decided to use. Regarding d-programming-ldc, I am not much sure if it would really change anything, but if it is generally agreed on, fine with me. Not having formally announced the move could actually come in handy here, since the only thing that depends on the path (besides quite a number of local user repos) is probably the Fedora packaging script. In any case, I think the most important thing here is to reach consensus as fast as possible here, so that we can restore LDC into a state where it isn't vastly undersold simply because of one or two days of documentation/publicity work… David

I still think it would be great if we could unify it under the DPL org. To a newcomer, the current state of things must look like there's a pretty fragmented community... - Alex
Nov 11 2011
prev sibling parent reply Ruslan Mullakhmetov <tiabaldu gmail.com> writes:
On 2011-11-12 00:06:27 +0400, David Nadlinger said:

 When we started the move to GitHub, I tried to create an ldc org, but 
 it was already taken. The best alternative we could come up with on IRC 
 was ldc-developers, which we then decided to use.
 
 Regarding d-programming-ldc, I am not much sure if it would really 
 change anything, but if it is generally agreed on, fine with me. Not 
 having formally announced the move could actually come in handy here, 
 since the only thing that depends on the path (besides quite a number 
 of local user repos) is probably the Fedora packaging script.

what about ldc.llvm.org? I think it's possible. as for d-p-l.org, it seems to me to be too long despite of it's currently the in first place at chrome start page ))) i looked up fo dpl.* but it apperntly taken. Probably this topic has been already discussed. -- BR, Ruslan Mullakhmetov
Nov 11 2011
parent reply Jonas Drewsen <jdrewsen nospam.com> writes:
Den 11-11-2011 23:51, Ruslan Mullakhmetov skrev:
 On 2011-11-12 00:06:27 +0400, David Nadlinger said:

 When we started the move to GitHub, I tried to create an ldc org,
 but it was already taken. The best alternative we could come up with
 on IRC was ldc-developers, which we then decided to use.

 Regarding d-programming-ldc, I am not much sure if it would really
 change anything, but if it is generally agreed on, fine with me. Not
 having formally announced the move could actually come in handy here,
 since the only thing that depends on the path (besides quite a number
 of local user repos) is probably the Fedora packaging script.

what about ldc.llvm.org? I think it's possible. as for d-p-l.org, it seems to me to be too long despite of it's currently the in first place at chrome start page ))) i looked up fo dpl.* but it apperntly taken. Probably this topic has been already discussed.

dlang.org actually contains a copy of d-p-l.org. Maybe the owner of dlang.org is willing to let digitalmars take over that domain and make it the official domain. That would be much better that d-p-l.org I think. /Jonas
Nov 12 2011
parent Ruslan Mullakhmetov <tiabaldu gmail.com> writes:
On 2011-11-12 11:29:51 +0000, Jonas Drewsen said:

 dlang.org actually contains a copy of d-p-l.org. Maybe the owner of 
 dlang.org is willing to let digitalmars take over that domain and make 
 it the official domain. That would be much better that d-p-l.org I 
 think.

Wow! I didn't know. that's good. -- BR, Ruslan Mullakhmetov
Nov 14 2011
prev sibling parent reply David Nadlinger <see klickverbot.at> writes:
On 11/11/11 8:22 AM, Jude Young wrote:
 https://bitbucket.org/lindquist/ldc/changesets
 Looks like there are some commits a few months back.

LDC moved to GitHub (https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc, DMD 2.056 and LLVM 3.0 support are being worked on by Alexey in branches). Unfortunately, shortly after the move was done, most of us became extremely busy with other work, leaving the project, from an outside point of view, in a limbo between the hosting platforms. Let me use this opportunity to ask for help in this regard: If you want to help the LDC project, no matter whether you are experienced with compiler hacking or not, currently one of the best ways would be to start/continue migrating all the (Wiki, …) content from DSource to GitHub (the project Wiki and possibly Pages). Alexey is doing a great job regarding D2 (we recently switched the default build target to LDC2), but currently, LDC looks worse than it really is simply because no one took the time to sit down and update the website/docs… If you are interested, let us know via #ldc freenode or GitHub pull requests. ;) David
Nov 11 2011
parent reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
On 11/11/2011 6:37 AM, David Nadlinger wrote:
 Let me use this opportunity to ask for help in this regard: If you want
 to help the LDC project, no matter whether you are experienced with
 compiler hacking or not, currently one of the best ways would be to
 start/continue migrating all the (Wiki, …) content from DSource to
 GitHub (the project Wiki and possibly Pages). Alexey is doing a great
 job regarding D2 (we recently switched the default build target to
 LDC2), but currently, LDC looks worse than it really is simply because
 no one took the time to sit down and update the website/docs…

 If you are interested, let us know via #ldc  freenode or GitHub pull
 requests. ;)

 David

Is D2 support on Linux 64 far enough along yet that it would be helpful to put it through the paces and file some bug reports?
Nov 11 2011
parent reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
== Quote from Trass3r (un known.com)'s article
 Is D2 support on Linux 64 far enough along yet that it would be helpful
 to put it through the paces and file some bug reports?

;)

Excellent, though if it works reasonably well with Linux-64 the wiki should reflect this. I thought I'd give it a try for some stuff that is extremely performance critical and requires good optimization. I followed the instructions at https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/wiki/Installation and I keep getting the following build error: [ 23%] Built target ldc2 [ 24%] Generating src/rt/util/utf.o, src/rt/util/utf.bc object.d: Error: module object is in file 'object.d' which cannot be read import path[0] = /home/dsimcha/ldcStuff/ldc/druntime/src import path[1] = /home/dsimcha/ldcStuff/ldc/druntime/src/gc import path[2] = /home/dsimcha/apps/include/d import path[3] = /home/dsimcha/apps/include/d/phobos import path[4] = /home/dsimcha/apps/include/d/ldc make[3]: *** [runtime/src/rt/util/utf.o] Error 1 make[2]: *** [runtime/CMakeFiles/druntime-ldc.dir/all] Error 2 make[1]: *** [runtime/CMakeFiles/phobos2.dir/rule] Error 2 make: *** [phobos2] Error 2 Any suggestions on what I could be doing wrong?
Nov 11 2011
parent reply David Nadlinger <see klickverbot.at> writes:
On 11/11/11 6:00 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 Excellent, though if it works reasonably well with Linux-64 the wiki should
 reflect this.  I thought I'd give it a try for some stuff that is extremely
 performance critical and requires good optimization.  I followed the
instructions
 at https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/wiki/Installation and I keep getting
the
 following build error:

 [ 23%] Built target ldc2
 [ 24%] Generating src/rt/util/utf.o, src/rt/util/utf.bc
 object.d: Error: module object is in file 'object.d' which cannot be read

 import path[0] = /home/dsimcha/ldcStuff/ldc/druntime/src
 import path[1] = /home/dsimcha/ldcStuff/ldc/druntime/src/gc
 import path[2] = /home/dsimcha/apps/include/d
 import path[3] = /home/dsimcha/apps/include/d/phobos
 import path[4] = /home/dsimcha/apps/include/d/ldc
 make[3]: *** [runtime/src/rt/util/utf.o] Error 1
 make[2]: *** [runtime/CMakeFiles/druntime-ldc.dir/all] Error 2
 make[1]: *** [runtime/CMakeFiles/phobos2.dir/rule] Error 2
 make: *** [phobos2] Error 2

 Any suggestions on what I could be doing wrong?

You did check out the druntime/Phobos submodules, right (if you hadn't initially, try deleting the build directory and running CMake again)? Other than that, I can't really say much – seems like the search paths could be off, but Jonathan Mercier recently adapted the build scripts for Fedora packaging, so he'd probably be the one to answer the question. David
Nov 11 2011
next sibling parent dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
== Quote from bioinfornatics (bioinfornatics fedoraproject.rog)'s article
 did you have a conf file here: /etc/ldc2.conf
 if yes could you try this:
 # mv /etc/ldc2.conf /etc/ldc2.conf.back
 # mv /etc/ldc2.rebuild.conf /etc/ldc2.rebuild.conf.back
 and run make
 $ make
 read this please https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/wiki/Installation

This fixes it. Thanks. Now, hello world compiles. There are still tons of little issues that I ran into just playing around with the thing for a few minutes. I definitely wouldn't use it for real work yet. On the other hand, I'm pleasantly surprised how far along it is. It's clearly far enough along to dig in and file some bug reports this weekend.
Nov 11 2011
prev sibling parent reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
On 11/11/2011 1:32 PM, bioinfornatics wrote:
 did you have a conf file here: /etc/ldc2.conf
 if yes could you try this:
 # mv /etc/ldc2.conf /etc/ldc2.conf.back
 # mv /etc/ldc2.rebuild.conf /etc/ldc2.rebuild.conf.back
 and run make
 $ make

 read this please https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/wiki/Installation

Ok, now I still have one other problem with the build system: How do you get it to do multilib/multiarch builds? I can't create 32-bit binaries on a 64-bit system because Phobos/druntime aren't being built for 32 bits.
Nov 12 2011
parent reply dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
On 11/13/2011 8:14 AM, bioinfornatics wrote:
 Le dimanche 13 novembre 2011 à 13:47 +0100, bioinfornatics a écrit :
 -DD_FLAGS="-g;-w;-d;-m32"

$ CFLAGS="${CFLAGS: -o -g -m32}" $ cmake -DD_FLAGS="-g;-w;-d;-m32" . it works ?

Wouldn't that just cause the libs to be built as 32-bit only? I want them built as **both** 32- and 64-bit and the 32-bit ones automatically used when building a 32-bit binary, etc.
Nov 13 2011
parent dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:
On 11/13/2011 10:58 AM, bioinfornatics wrote:
 Maybe i have miss understood .
 you want build a lib as 32 binary so for this before you need have
 phobos and druntime as 32 bits. for build a library as 32 bits with ldc2
 build as 64 you need you flag -m32.
 by default:
   - ldc2 64 do like -m64
   - ldc2 32 do like -m32

Right, understood. My point is that there should be a multilib option that automates this in the build process. I've submitted an enhancement request with more details: https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/issues/23
Nov 13 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Trass3r <un known.com> writes:
 Is D2 support on Linux 64 far enough along yet that it would be helpful  
 to put it through the paces and file some bug reports?

It compiles my stuff flawlessly. Also it's the only option to get LTO atm ;)
Nov 11 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Trass3r <un known.com> writes:
bioinfornatics has recently been trying to improve the build scripts. I  
guess something went wrong there.
Nov 11 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent bioinfornatics <bioinfornatics fedoraproject.rog> writes:
Le vendredi 11 novembre 2011 =C3=A0 18:16 +0100, David Nadlinger a =C3=A9cr=
it :
 On 11/11/11 6:00 PM, dsimcha wrote:
 Excellent, though if it works reasonably well with Linux-64 the wiki sh=


 reflect this.  I thought I'd give it a try for some stuff that is extre=


 performance critical and requires good optimization.  I followed the in=


 at https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/wiki/Installation and I keep g=


 following build error:

 [ 23%] Built target ldc2
 [ 24%] Generating src/rt/util/utf.o, src/rt/util/utf.bc
 object.d: Error: module object is in file 'object.d' which cannot be re=


 import path[0] =3D /home/dsimcha/ldcStuff/ldc/druntime/src
 import path[1] =3D /home/dsimcha/ldcStuff/ldc/druntime/src/gc
 import path[2] =3D /home/dsimcha/apps/include/d
 import path[3] =3D /home/dsimcha/apps/include/d/phobos
 import path[4] =3D /home/dsimcha/apps/include/d/ldc
 make[3]: *** [runtime/src/rt/util/utf.o] Error 1
 make[2]: *** [runtime/CMakeFiles/druntime-ldc.dir/all] Error 2
 make[1]: *** [runtime/CMakeFiles/phobos2.dir/rule] Error 2
 make: *** [phobos2] Error 2

 Any suggestions on what I could be doing wrong?

You did check out the druntime/Phobos submodules, right (if you hadn't=

 initially, try deleting the build directory and running CMake again)?=20
 Other than that, I can't really say much =E2=80=93 seems like the search =

 could be off, but Jonathan Mercier recently adapted the build scripts=20
 for Fedora packaging, so he'd probably be the one to answer the question.
=20
 David

did you have a conf file here: /etc/ldc2.conf if yes could you try this: # mv /etc/ldc2.conf /etc/ldc2.conf.back # mv /etc/ldc2.rebuild.conf /etc/ldc2.rebuild.conf.back and run make $ make read this please https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/wiki/Installation
Nov 11 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent Brad Anderson <eco gnuk.net> writes:
--f46d04071663899f3004b17a071f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Alex R=F8nne Petersen
<xtzgzorex gmail.com>wrote:

 On 11-11-2011 19:31, Walter Bright wrote:

 On 11/11/2011 5:43 AM, Alex R=F8nne Petersen wrote:

 On 11-11-2011 14:35, dsimcha wrote:

 On 11/11/2011 3:57 AM, Alex R=F8nne Petersen wrote:

 On 11-11-2011 08:22, Jude Young wrote:

 On Fri 11 Nov 2011 01:13:32 AM CST, Benjamin Thaut wrote:

 Is the LDC project dead? the last update I found is from 2010.

Thanks to Trass3r via stackoverflow. https://bitbucket.org/**lindquist/ldc/changesets<https://bitbucket.o=






 Looks like there are some commits a few months back.

 It might have died in the meantime though

It is on GitHub: https://github.com/ldc-**developers/ldc<https://gith=





 - Alex

This needs to be publicized somewhere. This whole time I thought LDC w=




 dead because I was looking on Thomas Lindquist's BitBucket repo, which
 hasn't been updated since July.

Come to think of it, I don't think it was announced anywhere but on IRC. There was, however, an NG post a while back, asking whether LDC could be hosted under the DPL organization on GitHub (it didn't get much of any attention...)=




I hadn't noticed that request. I don't know if it is a good idea or not to put it under d-programming-language. One issue is it might run out of space for the free version :-) Another might be the implication of who is in charge of it.

I was in contact with GitHub some months back, and the space limit is actually a soft limit - for open source projects, they don't actually car=

 if we exceed the limit (as long as we aren't doing anything obviously evi=

 of course :)).

 I think you could use the teams system in organizations to deal with admi=

 access to the repos.

same thing. Serious open source projects don't really need to worry about the space limit.
 Anyhow, may I make a suggestion? I tried to make a deimos project under
 github, but that was taken. So instead, I thought of
 d-programming-deimos, which seems perfect. Can I suggest renaming
 ldc-developers to d-programming-ldc? I think that would help tie the D
 related projects together.

 Right now, someone looking at "ldc-developers" would have no idea it is
 related to D.

 Prefixing D projects with "d-programming" would help out with brand
 visibility.

Makes sense. - Alex

--f46d04071663899f3004b17a071f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Alex R=F8nne Petersen <span dir=3D"ltr">&= lt;<a href=3D"mailto:xtzgzorex gmail.com">xtzgzorex gmail.com</a>&gt;</span=
 wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" st=

<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">On 11-11-2011 19:31, Walter Bright = wrote:<br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p= x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> On 11/11/2011 5:43 AM, Alex R=F8nne Petersen wrote:<br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p= x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> On 11-11-2011 14:35, dsimcha wrote:<br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p= x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> On 11/11/2011 3:57 AM, Alex R=F8nne Petersen wrote:<br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p= x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> On 11-11-2011 08:22, Jude Young wrote:<br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p= x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> On Fri 11 Nov 2011 01:13:32 AM CST, Benjamin Thaut wrote:<br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p= x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Is the LDC project dead? the last update I found is from 2010.<br> </blockquote> <br> Thanks to Trass3r via stackoverflow.<br> <br> <a href=3D"https://bitbucket.org/lindquist/ldc/changesets" target=3D"_blank= ">https://bitbucket.org/<u></u>lindquist/ldc/changesets</a><br> Looks like there are some commits a few months back.<br> <br> It might have died in the meantime though<br> </blockquote> <br> It is on GitHub: <a href=3D"https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc" target= =3D"_blank">https://github.com/ldc-<u></u>developers/ldc</a><br> <br> - Alex<br> </blockquote> <br> This needs to be publicized somewhere. This whole time I thought LDC was<br=

br> hasn&#39;t been updated since July.<br> </blockquote> <br> Come to think of it, I don&#39;t think it was announced anywhere but on<br> IRC. There<br> was, however, an NG post a while back, asking whether LDC could be<br> hosted under<br> the DPL organization on GitHub (it didn&#39;t get much of any attention...)= .<br> </blockquote> <br> I hadn&#39;t noticed that request.<br> <br> I don&#39;t know if it is a good idea or not to put it under<br> d-programming-language. One issue is it might run out of space for the<br> free version :-) Another might be the implication of who is in charge of<br=

</blockquote> <br></div></div> I was in contact with GitHub some months back, and the space limit is actua= lly a soft limit - for open source projects, they don&#39;t actually care i= f we exceed the limit (as long as we aren&#39;t doing anything obviously ev= il of course :)).<br> <br> I think you could use the teams system in organizations to deal with admin = access to the repos.<div class=3D"im"><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div=
<div>A friend of mine set up the wxWidget&#39;s github mirror and they tol=

eed to worry about the space limit.=A0</div> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p= x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class=3D"im"> <br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p= x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <br> Anyhow, may I make a suggestion? I tried to make a deimos project under<br> github, but that was taken. So instead, I thought of<br> d-programming-deimos, which seems perfect. Can I suggest renaming<br> ldc-developers to d-programming-ldc? I think that would help tie the D<br> related projects together.<br> <br> Right now, someone looking at &quot;ldc-developers&quot; would have no idea= it is<br> related to D.<br> <br> Prefixing D projects with &quot;d-programming&quot; would help out with bra= nd<br> visibility.<br> </blockquote> <br></div> Makes sense.<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br> <br> - Alex<br> </font></span></blockquote></div><div><br></div> --f46d04071663899f3004b17a071f--
Nov 11 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent bioinfornatics <bioinfornatics fedoraproject.rog> writes:
Le samedi 12 novembre 2011 =C3=A0 10:24 -0500, dsimcha a =C3=A9crit :
 On 11/11/2011 1:32 PM, bioinfornatics wrote:
 did you have a conf file here: /etc/ldc2.conf
 if yes could you try this:
 # mv /etc/ldc2.conf /etc/ldc2.conf.back
 # mv /etc/ldc2.rebuild.conf /etc/ldc2.rebuild.conf.back
 and run make
 $ make

 read this please https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/wiki/Installatio=



Ok, now I still have one other problem with the build system: How do=20 you get it to do multilib/multiarch builds? I can't create 32-bit=20 binaries on a 64-bit system because Phobos/druntime aren't being built=

 for 32 bits.

and if use add this command to cmake: -DD_FLAGS=3D"-g;-w;-d;-m32" ?
Nov 13 2011
prev sibling next sibling parent bioinfornatics <bioinfornatics fedoraproject.rog> writes:
Le dimanche 13 novembre 2011 =C3=A0 13:47 +0100, bioinfornatics a =C3=A9cri=
t :
 -DD_FLAGS=3D"-g;-w;-d;-m32"

$ CFLAGS=3D"${CFLAGS: -o -g -m32}" $ cmake -DD_FLAGS=3D"-g;-w;-d;-m32" . it works ?
Nov 13 2011
prev sibling parent bioinfornatics <bioinfornatics fedoraproject.rog> writes:
Le dimanche 13 novembre 2011 =C3=A0 09:35 -0500, dsimcha a =C3=A9crit :
 On 11/13/2011 8:14 AM, bioinfornatics wrote:
 Le dimanche 13 novembre 2011 =C3=A0 13:47 +0100, bioinfornatics a =C3=


 -DD_FLAGS=3D"-g;-w;-d;-m32"

$ CFLAGS=3D"${CFLAGS: -o -g -m32}" $ cmake -DD_FLAGS=3D"-g;-w;-d;-m32" . it works ?

Wouldn't that just cause the libs to be built as 32-bit only? I want=20 them built as **both** 32- and 64-bit and the 32-bit ones automatically=

 used when building a 32-bit binary, etc.

Maybe i have miss understood . you want build a lib as 32 binary so for this before you need have phobos and druntime as 32 bits. for build a library as 32 bits with ldc2 build as 64 you need you flag -m32. by default: - ldc2 64 do like -m64 - ldc2 32 do like -m32 for this reason with ldc 64 your need use -m 32 for force build as 32 binary but too if on your system you have both 32 and 64 binary it could be have a problem with /etc/ldc2.conf and his library path. so maybe each time you want use as 32 or 64 you need set this conf file to right lib 32 or 64 if they are a good way to do that ...
Nov 13 2011