• Don Clugston (9/9) Jun 26 2006 Has anyone had any success in compiling phobos with -cov -unittest?
• BCS (6/19) Jun 26 2006 this is (I think) a known issue with dmd and circular imports. -cov adds...
• kris (8/30) Jun 26 2006 -cov adds a static-ctor to each module compiled in that manner (IIRC),
• Deewiant (11/17) Jun 26 2006 I don't see why this is such a problem. Circular construction might be, ...

Don Clugston <dac nospam.com.au> writes:

Has anyone had any success in compiling phobos with -cov -unittest?
Using DMD 0.161 - Windows, it compiles without warnings, but running the 
executable just prints:

C:\dmd\src\phobos>dmd -cov -unittest unittest
c:\dmd\bin\..\..\dm\bin\link.exe unittest,,,user32+kernel32/noi;

C:\dmd\src\phobos>unittest
Error: circular initialization dependency with module object


Am I doing something wrong?
(I copied my phobos.lib into dmd\lib to overwrite the existing one).

BCS <BCS pathlink.com> writes:

Don Clugston wrote:
 Has anyone had any success in compiling phobos with -cov -unittest?
 Using DMD 0.161 - Windows, it compiles without warnings, but running the 
 executable just prints:
 
 C:\dmd\src\phobos>dmd -cov -unittest unittest
 c:\dmd\bin\..\..\dm\bin\link.exe unittest,,,user32+kernel32/noi;
 
 C:\dmd\src\phobos>unittest
 Error: circular initialization dependency with module object
 
 
 Am I doing something wrong?
 (I copied my phobos.lib into dmd\lib to overwrite the existing one).

this is (I think) a known issue with dmd and circular imports. -cov adds 
a static constructor that somehow gets interpreted by the runtime as a 
link in a circular dependency. Until Walter fixes this (please oh please 
do this soon!!) the best thing I have considered is building with -cov 
on one or more modules (but not all) at a time.

kris <foo bar.com> writes:

BCS wrote:
 Don Clugston wrote:
 
 Has anyone had any success in compiling phobos with -cov -unittest?
 Using DMD 0.161 - Windows, it compiles without warnings, but running 
 the executable just prints:

 C:\dmd\src\phobos>dmd -cov -unittest unittest
 c:\dmd\bin\..\..\dm\bin\link.exe unittest,,,user32+kernel32/noi;

 C:\dmd\src\phobos>unittest
 Error: circular initialization dependency with module object


 Am I doing something wrong?
 (I copied my phobos.lib into dmd\lib to overwrite the existing one).

 
 
 this is (I think) a known issue with dmd and circular imports. -cov adds 
 a static constructor that somehow gets interpreted by the runtime as a 
 link in a circular dependency. Until Walter fixes this (please oh please 
 do this soon!!) the best thing I have considered is building with -cov 
 on one or more modules (but not all) at a time.

-cov adds a static-ctor to each module compiled in that manner (IIRC), 
and thus exposes a runtime issue where any of the relevant modules have 
circular imports.

Probably the only realistic way to fix this is to break the circle.

Don ~ I noticed that the new Win32 headers have a similar dilemma. Where 
large numbers of modules are concerned (e.g. Win32) I've found Dimple to 
be a real help in figuring out where the cycles are.

Deewiant <deewiant.doesnotlike.spam gmail.com> writes:

kris wrote:
 -cov adds a static-ctor to each module compiled in that manner (IIRC),
 and thus exposes a runtime issue where any of the relevant modules have
 circular imports.
 
 Probably the only realistic way to fix this is to break the circle.
 

I don't see why this is such a problem. Circular construction might be, yes ---
each static constructor wanting to initialise something which needs the other
module. Then, the compiler cannot know which should be initialised first.

However, usually, couldn't the compiler just pick one module and run its
constructors first? If not, perhaps a feature could be added: the constructors
could have a parameter corresponding to their priority --- highest priority is
run first. The brackets in "static this()" are redundant as is, since there's
never anything to put in them, so might as well put a number there and have it
do something useful.

Or is there a deeper issue I'm ignorant of?