www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - D support for the Meson build system

reply Matthias Klumpp <matthias tenstral.net> writes:
Hi!
Last week I was at this year's GUADEC conference and listened to 
a very interesting talk on the Meson build system[2] which is 
designed for very fast builds and as a much more modern 
replacement for Automake with a simple syntax.
In the past few days I added support for D (all three major 
compilers) to the Meson build system, with some great results-

While dub is awesome for simple and small projects, you usually 
want a bit more for bigger projects, especially if you are mixing 
D code with C bits or are linking against libraries written in C 
(which is what pretty much all the D code I write does 
excessively).
You also make the life of Linux distribution packagers much 
easier with this, since dub isn't really working well for us in 
that usecase (only one D package in Debian uses it at time, and 
only for an experiment I made to check whether using dub is 
viable. At time, dub is pretty high up on my D complaints 
list[3]).

So, should you consider adding Meson support for your project? 
That depends.
A few highlights of Meson include:
  * Very fast builds using the Ninja[4] build tool (which is also 
used by projects like Google Chrome) - for a project like 
Terminix, dub with LDC builds in 8.6s, while Meson and ninja take 
only 6s here. The change is even more dramatic with a lot more D 
source files.

  * Support for installing files, and generally good support for 
Linux distributions.

  * Mixing in parts written in C or C++ is very simple.

  * Depending on system libraries (Cairo, Libarchive, GTK+) is 
really easy, and you can also version the dependencies.

  * You can configure files at build time and also run arbitrary 
commands to e.g. generate additional code to compile in or to 
compile additional resources, which is needed for a lot of 
applications.

If you want to see a real world example on how to use Meson, 
check out my example patch for Terminix:
https://github.com/gnunn1/terminix/commit/01d11dcff7da4626a91cf0344897c4ff1783a69e

For simpler examples, check out the D unit tests for Meson:
https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/tree/master/test%20cases/d

Meson supports building files for Visual Studio and is supposed 
to work on Windows as well. I developed the D pieces solely on 
Linux and couldn't test anything on Windows yet (but it would be 
interesting to know if this works).

D support will be available in Meson with the upcoming 0.34 
release, which is when it will show up in Linux distributions 
like Ubuntu and Debian.
Until then, it's really easy to try Meson from Git master[5].

I hope you find this as useful as I do :-)

Cheers,
     Matthias

[1]: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME_Users_And_Developers_European_Conference
[2]: http://mesonbuild.com/
[3]: 
https://gist.github.com/ximion/77dda83a9926f892c9a4fa0074d6bf2b
[4]: https://ninja-build.org/
[5]: https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson
Aug 21 2016
next sibling parent reply jkpl <jkpl nowhere.de> writes:
On Sunday, 21 August 2016 at 19:08:59 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
 for a project like Terminix, dub with LDC builds in 8.6s, while 
 Meson and ninja take only 6s here.
Did you try to build with DUB but with WIFI or ethernet interface toggled off ?
Aug 21 2016
parent reply Matthias Klumpp <matthias tenstral.net> writes:
On Monday, 22 August 2016 at 01:34:36 UTC, jkpl wrote:
 On Sunday, 21 August 2016 at 19:08:59 UTC, Matthias Klumpp 
 wrote:
 for a project like Terminix, dub with LDC builds in 8.6s, 
 while Meson and ninja take only 6s here.
Did you try to build with DUB but with WIFI or ethernet interface toggled off ?
No, but I obviously excluded any download times, and also dependency build-times to be fair to dub. But, with network access toggled off: Terminix: debug build: dub: 0m8.60s ninja: 0m6.36s release build (standard args): dub: 0m12.923s ninja: 0m11.740s asgen: debug build: dub: 0m13.00s ninja: 0m13.04s release build: dub: 0m25.72s ninja: 0m19.19s I ran these a few times, and the results were comparable, although I think if I would perform proper statistics the variance would be relatively high. Compiler was LDC 1.0.0 (on a Xeon E3-1231 v3). One important thing about Ninja is that it will perform split-builds by default, so if you change something, only the changed piece needs to be recompiled. I *think* dub can do that too, but for some reason it never does it (even when using --parallel). That behavior drastically reduces compile times when working on a project. Also, Ninja knows about all the source files and generated files in advance, while dub needs to search for them on every run. That of course also has the drawback that one needs to specify the source files prior to building in the meson.build file.
Aug 22 2016
next sibling parent jkpl <jkpl nowhere.de> writes:
On Monday, 22 August 2016 at 11:45:37 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
 On Monday, 22 August 2016 at 01:34:36 UTC, jkpl wrote:
 On Sunday, 21 August 2016 at 19:08:59 UTC, Matthias Klumpp 
 wrote:
 for a project like Terminix, dub with LDC builds in 8.6s, 
 while Meson and ninja take only 6s here.
Did you try to build with DUB but with WIFI or ethernet interface toggled off ?
I ran these a few times, and the results were comparable, although I think if I would perform proper statistics the variance would be relatively high. Compiler was LDC 1.0.0 (on a Xeon E3-1231 v3).
Sorry I was thinking to something, that could have slowed down the DUB build, but this was obviouslt wrong.
Aug 22 2016
prev sibling parent reply kinke <noone nowhere.com> writes:
On Monday, 22 August 2016 at 11:45:37 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
 One important thing about Ninja is that it will perform 
 split-builds by default, so if you change something, only the 
 changed piece needs to be recompiled. I *think* dub can do that 
 too, but for some reason it never does it (even when using 
 --parallel).
 That behavior drastically reduces compile times when working on 
 a project.
So if I understand correctly, Meson/Ninja compile each module separately, while dub builds them all in a single command line. This makes quite a big difference. Compiling all at once requires a full rebuild every time a single file is modified and implies full single-threadedness. The advantages are that each file is only loaded and parsed once, but much more importantly, everything is emitted into a single object file, allowing for implicit full cross-module inlining (across the compiled modules). So while compiling each file separately in parallel is potentially much much faster, the produced release binary may be slower due to less/no cross-module inlining (e.g., LDC's option is still experimental and known to have issues).
Apr 07
parent reply Martin Nowak <code dawg.eu> writes:
On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 07:57:02 UTC, kinke wrote:
 So while compiling each file separately in parallel is 
 potentially much much faster, the produced release binary may 
 be slower due to less/no cross-module inlining (e.g., LDC's 
 option is still experimental and known to have issues).
In fact single-module compilation is slower than package compilation most of the time due to the redundant parsing&semantic of common imports. As an extreme example, last time I tried, single-module compilation for gtkd was ~10x slower than compiling the library at once. Savings on recompilation hardly make up for this huge overhead. Overall I'd recommend organizing and building subpackages when a project becomes too big.
Apr 08
parent reply Atila Neves <atila.neves gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, 8 April 2017 at 19:11:35 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
 On Friday, 7 April 2017 at 07:57:02 UTC, kinke wrote:
 So while compiling each file separately in parallel is 
 potentially much much faster, the produced release binary may 
 be slower due to less/no cross-module inlining (e.g., LDC's 
 option is still experimental and known to have issues).
In fact single-module compilation is slower than package compilation most of the time due to the redundant parsing&semantic of common imports. As an extreme example, last time I tried, single-module compilation for gtkd was ~10x slower than compiling the library at once. Savings on recompilation hardly make up for this huge overhead. Overall I'd recommend organizing and building subpackages when a project becomes too big.
Per package is significantly faster. As far as I know the only build system that does this by default for D is reggae. Atila
Apr 10
parent reply Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-announce writes:
On Mon, 2017-04-10 at 08:39 +0000, Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
 [=E2=80=A6]
=20
 As far as I know the only build system that does this by default=C2=A0
 for D is reggae.
I will be adding a new builder to the SCons D tools to do whole source and per package compiling =E2=80=93 to add to the module at a time compilin= g. It would be good to add this for CMake-D and the D support in Meson. --=20 Russel. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n= et 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: russel winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
Apr 10
parent reply Matthias Klumpp <mak debian.org> writes:
On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 12:10:41 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
 On Mon, 2017-04-10 at 08:39 +0000, Atila Neves via 
 Digitalmars-d- announce wrote:
 […]
 
 As far as I know the only build system that does this by 
 default for D is reggae.
I will be adding a new builder to the SCons D tools to do whole source and per package compiling – to add to the module at a time compiling. It would be good to add this for CMake-D and the D support in Meson.
I am not buying the necessity of not-splitbuilding for optimizations yet. If that would be the case, how do optimizations work with projects using GCC/Clang where splitbuilding is the default and often only option (like Mesa, Linux, lots of scientific stuff). Having some level of dub integration is Meson would be neat indeed - maybe one could make a small helper binary Meson can call to fetch things from the dub registry. I wonder though how that would jive with Meson's own subprojects/wrap system. Probably worth investigating.
Apr 10
next sibling parent reply Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-announce writes:
On Mon, 2017-04-10 at 12:41 +0000, Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
=20
[=E2=80=A6].
=20
 I am not buying the necessity of not-splitbuilding for=C2=A0
 optimizations yet. If that would be the case, how do=C2=A0
 optimizations work with projects using GCC/Clang where=C2=A0
 splitbuilding is the default and often only option (like Mesa,=C2=A0
 Linux, lots of scientific stuff).
I am investigating this architecture because Chapel code cannot really be compiled separately as far as I can see. cf. http://chapel.cray.com/ Chapel is a PGAS language (like X10) for use with Big Computation=E2=84=A2= on serious computers and also any computer. I'm interested as a way of connecting Python visualisation to computation that NumPy can't really handle. It seems sensible therefore to offer this way of working for D since whether there is actually any optimisation benefit or not some people think there is and use it as a stick to beat you with if it isn't there.
 Having some level of dub integration is Meson would be neat=C2=A0
 indeed - maybe one could make a small helper binary Meson can=C2=A0
 call to fetch things from the dub registry.
 I wonder though how that would jive with Meson's own=C2=A0
 subprojects/wrap system. Probably worth investigating.
My thought for SCons was to delegate the package fetching to Dub as a subprocess or write some Python to use the Dub API. I'm not clear on that as yet, the issue is whether the Dub local source repo is the right way forward =E2=80=93 using Dub for preparing the compiled artefact i= s likely not the right way forward for SCons. This would then make it easy to do something for Rust/Cargo =E2=80=93 except that SCons doesn't rea= lly support Rust yet, and with Cargo are there any Rust users not using Cargo. =20 Having said all this SCons stuff, if there was Meson support for this "get the source from the Dub repository, compile it and make it a dependency" I'd likely stay with Meson for my codes. --=20 Russel. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n= et 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: russel winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
Apr 10
parent reply Matthias Klumpp <mak debian.org> writes:
On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 15:27:25 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
 On Mon, 2017-04-10 at 12:41 +0000, Matthias Klumpp via 
 Digitalmars-d- announce wrote:
 
[…].
 
 I am not buying the necessity of not-splitbuilding for 
 optimizations yet. If that would be the case, how do 
 optimizations work with projects using GCC/Clang where 
 splitbuilding is the default and often only option (like Mesa, 
 Linux, lots of scientific stuff).
I am investigating this architecture because Chapel code cannot really be compiled separately as far as I can see. cf. http://chapel.cray.com/ Chapel is a PGAS language (like X10) for use with Big Computation™ on serious computers and also any computer. I'm interested as a way of connecting Python visualisation to computation that NumPy can't really handle.
That's pretty cool! One way to do this with Meson is to spawn a shell script as custom target, but that obviously sucks. It might be worth reporting this as issue upstream, with a concrete usecase like this, the Meson maintainers will highly likely add support for it. One could also always write a plugin as a last resort.
 It seems sensible therefore to offer this way of working for D 
 since whether there is actually any optimisation benefit or not 
 some people think there is and use it as a stick to beat you 
 with if it isn't there.

 Having some level of dub integration is Meson would be neat
 indeed - maybe one could make a small helper binary Meson can
 call to fetch things from the dub registry.
 I wonder though how that would jive with Meson's own
 subprojects/wrap system. Probably worth investigating.
My thought for SCons was to delegate the package fetching to Dub as a subprocess or write some Python to use the Dub API. I'm not clear on that as yet, the issue is whether the Dub local source repo is the right way forward – using Dub for preparing the compiled artefact is likely not the right way forward for SCons. This would then make it easy to do something for Rust/Cargo – except that SCons doesn't really support Rust yet, and with Cargo are there any Rust users not using Cargo. Having said all this SCons stuff, if there was Meson support for this "get the source from the Dub repository, compile it and make it a dependency" I'd likely stay with Meson for my codes.
SCons is considered evil, last time I checked ^^ => https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide#line867 (unless it's used right, which seems to be hard) - I have no idea though on whether the issues with it were fixed, the entry on SCons hasn't been updated in a while.
Apr 10
next sibling parent Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-announce writes:
On Mon, 2017-04-10 at 17:56 +0000, Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
 [=E2=80=A6]
 SCons is considered evil, last time I checked ^^ =3D>=C2=A0
 https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide#line867
 (unless it's used right, which seems to be hard) - I have no idea=C2=A0
 though on whether the issues with it were fixed, the entry on=C2=A0
 SCons hasn't been updated in a while.
Given that some of the "facts" there are actually wrong, I think we can infer Debian people assume Autotools is all that is needed and are uninterested in new things. SCons has supported sonames for a while, for example. Prejudice in these things, as in all things, tends to get reified and become unalterable fact. This no longer worries me. --=20 Russel. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n= et 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: russel winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
Apr 10
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-announce writes:
On Mon, 2017-04-10 at 17:56 +0000, Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
 [=E2=80=A6]
=20
 That's pretty cool! One way to do this with Meson is to spawn a=C2=A0
 shell script as custom target, but that obviously sucks. It might=C2=A0
 be worth reporting this as issue upstream, with a concrete=C2=A0
 usecase like this, the Meson maintainers will highly likely add=C2=A0
 support for it.
 One could also always write a plugin as a last resort.
=20
 [=E2=80=A6]
I'll look to ensuring my facts are correct, and then find out where to put an issue about this =E2=80=93 I am assuming a GitHub repository with is= sues . --=20 Russel. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n= et 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: russel winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
Apr 10
parent Matthias Klumpp <mak debian.org> writes:
On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 18:11:44 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
 [...]
 I'll look to ensuring my facts are correct, and then find out 
 where to put an issue about this – I am assuming a GitHub 
 repository with issues .
Just file one at https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/issues - it might even be that Meson supports this already, the project is moving so fast it's really hard to keep up with all the changes (Mesa and X investigating using it boosted it's development quite a bit, and it was really fast even before).
Apr 10
prev sibling parent "H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-announce" writes:
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 05:56:38PM +0000, Matthias Klumpp via
Digitalmars-d-announce wrote:
 On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 15:27:25 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
[...]
 My thought for SCons was to delegate the package fetching to Dub as
 a subprocess or write some Python to use the Dub API. I'm not clear
 on that as yet, the issue is whether the Dub local source repo is
 the right way forward – using Dub for preparing the compiled
 artefact is likely not the right way forward for SCons. This would
 then make it easy to do something for Rust/Cargo – except that SCons
 doesn't really support Rust yet, and with Cargo are there any Rust
 users not using Cargo.
 
 Having said all this SCons stuff, if there was Meson support for
 this "get the source from the Dub repository, compile it and make it
 a dependency" I'd likely stay with Meson for my codes.
SCons is considered evil, last time I checked ^^ => https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide#line867 (unless it's used right, which seems to be hard) - I have no idea though on whether the issues with it were fixed, the entry on SCons hasn't been updated in a while.
I use SCons exclusively for my D projects, and haven't faced any major problems. I understand, however, that from a distro's POV, it can be annoying to work with if you're not familiar with how to patch SConstruct scripts to do what is needed. It's true that unless upstream explicitly supports installation targets, SCons won't do it for you. I do actually maintain a Debian package that uses SCons (well, written by yours truly, so perhaps that's cheating), and I did find that I have to write rules explicitly for supporting installation targets just so it will work properly with Debian's packaging scripts. As for SONAME support (mentioned by the wiki), I'm not sure what the big deal is... isn't it just a matter of passing the right linker flags to the compile command? So either adding something to CFLAGS or LDFLAGS in the construction environment should do the trick. SCons refusing to pick up settings from the user's environment can be annoying to distros, but in return for that, it gives you 100% reproducible (incremental!) builds by default, whereas most Makefiles require you to `make clean` just to be sure, to the point that it has become accepted practice to always "build from clean" because otherwise you just never know. Even Debian's packaging scripts have a `clean` target because of this. But in an SCons-based package, the `clean` target is a one-liner `scons -c`, since SCons knows what targets it has produced and practically guarantees you're back to a clean slate. Even though that's actually unnecessary to produce a good build! (Ironically, leaving the `clean` rule blank causes the packaging scripts to complain because they notice stray files lying around, obviously a feature written with a Makefile mindset because stray files are problematic in Makefile-based projects, but hardly worth attention in an SCons-based project!) T -- Curiosity kills the cat. Moral: don't be the cat.
Apr 10
prev sibling next sibling parent Martin Nowak <code+news.digitalmars dawg.eu> writes:
On 04/10/2017 02:41 PM, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
 On Monday, 10 April 2017 at 12:10:41 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
 On Mon, 2017-04-10 at 08:39 +0000, Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d-
 announce wrote:
 […]

 As far as I know the only build system that does this by default for
 D is reggae.
I will be adding a new builder to the SCons D tools to do whole source and per package compiling – to add to the module at a time compiling. It would be good to add this for CMake-D and the D support in Meson.
I am not buying the necessity of not-splitbuilding for optimizations yet. If that would be the case, how do optimizations work with projects using GCC/Clang where splitbuilding is the default and often only option (like Mesa, Linux, lots of scientific stuff).
The argument is not so much about optimization (which can be obtained via LTO as well), but primarily about build speed. Turns out that recompiling 10 modules at once (a whole package) is often faster than doing 3 single-module compilations when each of the 3 modules imports the same 4 modules. 10 < 3 + 3 * 4 Sure the latter is parallelizable, but a lot of computation is wasted repeating the same work. dmd has another build mode `-c` with multiple source files producing multiple object files, but that mode is fundamentally broken, b/c template instances are only emitted to one of the object files, leading to funny linker errors when rebuilding only some modules. We kinda know how to fix this (without resorting to `-allinst`), but it's a lot of work, and splitting into subpackages simply works, is fast, and can be parallelized as well. -Martin
Apr 10
prev sibling parent reply Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d-announce writes:
On Mon, 2017-04-10 at 12:41 +0000, Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d-
announce wrote:
=20
[=E2=80=A6]
 I am not buying the necessity of not-splitbuilding for=C2=A0
 optimizations yet. If that would be the case, how do=C2=A0
 optimizations work with projects using GCC/Clang where=C2=A0
 splitbuilding is the default and often only option (like Mesa,=C2=A0
 Linux, lots of scientific stuff).
[=E2=80=A6] It seems that unit-threaded cannot be built module at a time due to various reflection bits, the only solution is all source at once. --=20 Russel. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n= et 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: russel winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
Apr 11
parent reply Atila Neves <atila.neves gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 at 07:34:58 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
 On Mon, 2017-04-10 at 12:41 +0000, Matthias Klumpp via 
 Digitalmars-d- announce wrote:
 
[…]
 I am not buying the necessity of not-splitbuilding for 
 optimizations yet. If that would be the case, how do 
 optimizations work with projects using GCC/Clang where 
 splitbuilding is the default and often only option (like Mesa, 
 Linux, lots of scientific stuff).
[…] It seems that unit-threaded cannot be built module at a time due to various reflection bits, the only solution is all source at once.
That's correct - __traits(getUnitTests) is broken unless compiling all at once which is extremely unfortunate. I've filed a dmd bug already. It's been on my TODO list for a while to fix it myself. Atila
Apr 11
parent Martin Nowak <code+news.digitalmars dawg.eu> writes:
On 04/11/2017 09:44 AM, Atila Neves wrote:
 That's correct - __traits(getUnitTests) is broken unless compiling all
 at once which is extremely unfortunate. I've filed a dmd bug already.
 It's been on my TODO list for a while to fix it myself.
[Issue 16995 – __traits(getUnittests) doesn't work with separate compilation](https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16995) Somewhat similar to [Issue 14894 – mangling of mixins and lambdas is not unique and depends on compilation flags](https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14894) Backlog Card: https://trello.com/c/YuW4JycJ/36-mangling-of-mixins-and-lambdas-can-change-w-unittest-or-other-versions
Apr 11
prev sibling next sibling parent Russel Winder <russel winder.org.uk> writes:
On Sunday, 21 August 2016 at 19:08:59 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
[…]
 In the past few days I added support for D (all three major 
 compilers) to the Meson build system, with some great results-
[…]
 I hope you find this as useful as I do :-)
[…] Yes, I do , it's great. Currently though there is apparently no integration between Meson and the Dub repository, i.e. it is not possible to get dependencies via Dub as purely a dependency manager and nothing to do with actual build. <Should this thread switch to a list that is not Announce?>
Apr 07
prev sibling next sibling parent aberba <karabutaworld gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 21 August 2016 at 19:08:59 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
 Hi!
 Last week I was at this year's GUADEC conference and listened 
 to a very interesting talk on the Meson build system[2] which 
 is designed for very fast builds and as a much more modern 
 replacement for Automake with a simple syntax.
 In the past few days I added support for D (all three major 
 compilers) to the Meson build system, with some great results-

 [...]
Seems like good news for us developing Linux apps.
Apr 07
prev sibling next sibling parent Martin Nowak <code dawg.eu> writes:
On Sunday, 21 August 2016 at 19:08:59 UTC, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
 I hope you find this as useful as I do :-)
Yes, mature build systems for bigger projects are great. Any opinion about/experience with [Bazel](https://bazel.build/)? https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/wiki/Comparisons#bazel
Apr 09
prev sibling parent reply Andrew Godfrey <X y.com> writes:
This looks very nice, but I'm having trouble getting it to work 
on Windows with DMD.

What static linker are you using? DmdDCompiler is defined to need 
one,
but the code in detect_static_linker expects the linker to 
support the "--version" command-line parameter (or "/?" if the 
linker is named "lib" or "lib.exe").

DMD's "lib.exe" doesn't support "--version" or "/?".
I suspect this is what I should be pointing it to, but the term 
"static linker" confuses me - maybe I want to be pointing it to 
"link.exe".
DMD's "link.exe" doesn't support "--version" but does support 
"/?".

I can hack around this, but I'm wondering why I'm alone in 
encountering this.
Thanks!
May 07
parent Matthias Klumpp <mak debian.org> writes:
Btw, to make Meson and other build systems work really well, we 
would need this bug fixed in DMDFE: 
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16746
At the moment, one needs to ninja clean way too often to get a 
good build.
May 08