Just wondering why I have to give dsss the -L-ldl flag manually when I
compile a Derelict-using program under Linux.
Seems like it shouldn't be neecessary for me to have to specify that.
But who's to blame?
* Is it DMD's fault for not including in the default link libs?
* Is it DSSS's fault for not picking up that it's needed (or for not
puttin it in the default list of flags?)
* Is it Derelict's fault for somehow not telling DSSS that it wants to
use libdl on Linux?
Any of those seem possible. So anyone know the answer?
Or is it just my fault for thinking I shouldn't have to stick a
version(linux) block in my dsss.conf file?
--bb
Apr 12 2008
↑ ↓←→ "Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> writes:
Isn't this what the "lib" pragma is for, if you don't want to have to
pass it?
-[Unknown]
Bill Baxter wrote:
Just wondering why I have to give dsss the -L-ldl flag manually when I
compile a Derelict-using program under Linux.
Seems like it shouldn't be neecessary for me to have to specify that.
But who's to blame?
* Is it DMD's fault for not including in the default link libs?
* Is it DSSS's fault for not picking up that it's needed (or for not
puttin it in the default list of flags?)
* Is it Derelict's fault for somehow not telling DSSS that it wants to
use libdl on Linux?
Any of those seem possible. So anyone know the answer?
Or is it just my fault for thinking I shouldn't have to stick a
version(linux) block in my dsss.conf file?
--bb
Apr 12 2008
↑ ↓ ←→ Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
Isn't this what the "lib" pragma is for, if you don't want to have to
pass it?
I suppose so (or "link" pragma using dsss/bud). So you're saying it
could be considered "Derelict's fault" for not providing that pragma.
On Windows, the equivalent libs (containing
LoadLibraryA/FreeLibrary/GetProcAddress) seem to be linked by default,
by someone in the toolchain. DMD or DSSS, I'm not sure which.
So it seems reasonable that it should be there by default under Linux, too.
-[Unknown]
Bill Baxter wrote:
Just wondering why I have to give dsss the -L-ldl flag manually when I
compile a Derelict-using program under Linux.
Seems like it shouldn't be neecessary for me to have to specify that.
But who's to blame?
* Is it DMD's fault for not including in the default link libs?
* Is it DSSS's fault for not picking up that it's needed (or for not
puttin it in the default list of flags?)
* Is it Derelict's fault for somehow not telling DSSS that it wants to
use libdl on Linux?
Any of those seem possible. So anyone know the answer?
Or is it just my fault for thinking I shouldn't have to stick a
version(linux) block in my dsss.conf file?
--bb
I'm interested here in understanding another difference between Linux and
Windows.
Chris Miller used Entice Designer to construct a GUI with the following imports
1 /*
2 Generated by Entice Designer
3 Entice Designer written by Christopher E. Miller
4 www.dprogramming.com/entice.php
5 */
6
7 import dwt.DWT;
8 import dwt.widgets.Display, dwt.widgets.Shell;
9 import dwt.widgets.Group, dwt.widgets.Text;
10 import dwt.widgets.Label, dwt.widgets.Combo;
11 import dwt.graphics.Color, dwt.graphics.Rectangle;
12 import dwt.widgets.MessageBox;
13
14
15 class MyShell
16 {
17 // Do not modify or move this block of variables.
18 //~Entice Designer variables begin here.
19 dwt.widgets.Shell.Shell shell;
20 dwt.widgets.Group.Group group1;
21 dwt.widgets.Text.Text text3;
22 dwt.widgets.Label.Label label5;
23 dwt.widgets.Text.Text Date;
24 dwt.widgets.Combo.Combo Payee;
25 dwt.widgets.Text.Text Code;
26 dwt.widgets.Text.Text ChequeNo;
27 dwt.widgets.Text.Text Details;
28 dwt.widgets.Button.Button OKButton;
29 dwt.widgets.Text.Text Credit;
30 dwt.widgets.Text.Text Debit;
31 dwt.widgets.Table.Table DataTable;
32 //~Entice Designer variables end here.
Now he tells me that this compiles in windows as is .
Notice he uses a Table . When I take the same program and compile it on Linux
I must add " Import dwt.widgets.Table" or it will not compile.
Now I am wondering if your problem with d l l ' s is similar ? Some built in
assumptions that Linux does not have .
Apr 12 2008
↑ ↓ ←→ Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Tower Ty wrote:
Bill Baxter Wrote:
Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
I'm interested here in understanding another difference between Linux and
Windows.
Chris Miller used Entice Designer to construct a GUI with the following imports
1 /*
2 Generated by Entice Designer
3 Entice Designer written by Christopher E. Miller
4 www.dprogramming.com/entice.php
5 */
6
7 import dwt.DWT;
8 import dwt.widgets.Display, dwt.widgets.Shell;
9 import dwt.widgets.Group, dwt.widgets.Text;
10 import dwt.widgets.Label, dwt.widgets.Combo;
11 import dwt.graphics.Color, dwt.graphics.Rectangle;
12 import dwt.widgets.MessageBox;
13
14
15 class MyShell
16 {
17 // Do not modify or move this block of variables.
18 //~Entice Designer variables begin here.
19 dwt.widgets.Shell.Shell shell;
20 dwt.widgets.Group.Group group1;
21 dwt.widgets.Text.Text text3;
22 dwt.widgets.Label.Label label5;
23 dwt.widgets.Text.Text Date;
24 dwt.widgets.Combo.Combo Payee;
25 dwt.widgets.Text.Text Code;
26 dwt.widgets.Text.Text ChequeNo;
27 dwt.widgets.Text.Text Details;
28 dwt.widgets.Button.Button OKButton;
29 dwt.widgets.Text.Text Credit;
30 dwt.widgets.Text.Text Debit;
31 dwt.widgets.Table.Table DataTable;
32 //~Entice Designer variables end here.
Now he tells me that this compiles in windows as is .
Notice he uses a Table . When I take the same program and compile it on Linux
I must add " Import dwt.widgets.Table" or it will not compile.
Now I am wondering if your problem with d l l ' s is similar ? Some built in
assumptions that Linux does not have .
I don't believe what Chris told you is true. I just used Entice
designer to make a DWT gui on Windows yesterday, and it was missing many
imports and wouldn't compile out of the box without adding them.
--bb
Apr 12 2008
↑ ↓ ← → Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Bill Baxter wrote:
Tower Ty wrote:
Bill Baxter Wrote:
Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
I'm interested here in understanding another difference between Linux
and Windows.
Chris Miller used Entice Designer to construct a GUI with the
following imports
1 /*
2 Generated by Entice Designer
3 Entice Designer written by Christopher E. Miller
4 www.dprogramming.com/entice.php
5 */
6
7 import dwt.DWT;
8 import dwt.widgets.Display, dwt.widgets.Shell;
9 import dwt.widgets.Group, dwt.widgets.Text;
10 import dwt.widgets.Label, dwt.widgets.Combo;
11 import dwt.graphics.Color, dwt.graphics.Rectangle;
12 import dwt.widgets.MessageBox;
13
14
15 class MyShell
16 {
17 // Do not modify or move this block of variables.
18 //~Entice Designer variables begin here.
19 dwt.widgets.Shell.Shell shell;
20 dwt.widgets.Group.Group group1;
21 dwt.widgets.Text.Text text3;
22 dwt.widgets.Label.Label label5;
23 dwt.widgets.Text.Text Date;
24 dwt.widgets.Combo.Combo Payee;
25 dwt.widgets.Text.Text Code;
26 dwt.widgets.Text.Text ChequeNo;
27 dwt.widgets.Text.Text Details;
28 dwt.widgets.Button.Button OKButton;
29 dwt.widgets.Text.Text Credit;
30 dwt.widgets.Text.Text Debit;
31 dwt.widgets.Table.Table DataTable;
32 //~Entice Designer variables end here.
Now he tells me that this compiles in windows as is .
Notice he uses a Table . When I take the same program and compile it
on Linux I must add " Import dwt.widgets.Table" or it will not compile.
Now I am wondering if your problem with d l l ' s is similar ? Some
built in assumptions that Linux does not have .
I don't believe what Chris told you is true. I just used Entice
designer to make a DWT gui on Windows yesterday, and it was missing many
imports and wouldn't compile out of the box without adding them.
Well, ok, maybe "many" is a bit of an overstatement. But it did not
compile out of the box without adding some additional imports.
--bb
Apr 12 2008
↑ ↓ ← → "Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> writes:
Yes, I'd think it's Derelict's fault personally. On Windows,
LoadLibraryA is (as far as I know) in the same library as a bunch of
other things you're going to need.
On Linux, it's separated into its own thing. It's potentially possible
you might want to write a Linux executable that does not require libdl,
specifically for a system which might not have it.
That said, it seems fairly unlikely. Surely you can change the dmd.conf
file to automatically pass -L-ldl to dmd, solving your problem?
-[Unknown]
Bill Baxter wrote:
Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
Isn't this what the "lib" pragma is for, if you don't want to have to
pass it?
I suppose so (or "link" pragma using dsss/bud). So you're saying it
could be considered "Derelict's fault" for not providing that pragma.
On Windows, the equivalent libs (containing
LoadLibraryA/FreeLibrary/GetProcAddress) seem to be linked by default,
by someone in the toolchain. DMD or DSSS, I'm not sure which.
So it seems reasonable that it should be there by default under Linux, too.
-[Unknown]
Bill Baxter wrote:
Just wondering why I have to give dsss the -L-ldl flag manually when
I compile a Derelict-using program under Linux.
Seems like it shouldn't be neecessary for me to have to specify that.
But who's to blame?
* Is it DMD's fault for not including in the default link libs?
* Is it DSSS's fault for not picking up that it's needed (or for not
puttin it in the default list of flags?)
* Is it Derelict's fault for somehow not telling DSSS that it wants
to use libdl on Linux?
Any of those seem possible. So anyone know the answer?
Or is it just my fault for thinking I shouldn't have to stick a
version(linux) block in my dsss.conf file?
--bb
Apr 12 2008
↑↓←→ Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Bill Baxter wrote:
Just wondering why I have to give dsss the -L-ldl flag manually when I
compile a Derelict-using program under Linux.
Seems like it shouldn't be neecessary for me to have to specify that.
But who's to blame?
* Is it DMD's fault for not including in the default link libs?
* Is it DSSS's fault for not picking up that it's needed (or for not
puttin it in the default list of flags?)
* Is it Derelict's fault for somehow not telling DSSS that it wants to
use libdl on Linux?
Any of those seem possible. So anyone know the answer?
Or is it just my fault for thinking I shouldn't have to stick a
version(linux) block in my dsss.conf file?
--bb
It may be that it is derelict's fault for not working with the tools, but
there is also the relevant bugzilla entries
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1663
and
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1690
pragma(lib) should be implemented on all platforms, or removed from the spec
entirely. I'd certainly prefer the former, as this probably is the one
thing that a build tool normally cannot do much beyond what the compiler
already does by telling the linker about always needed libraries (like the
runtime).
--
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Apr 12 2008
↑ ↓← → "Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> writes:
I had no idea. I guess I should try to get my sneaker out of my mouth
now...
I may see if I can find time to attach a patch in there (seems like
something completely solvable using the frontend.)
-[Unknown]
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
Just wondering why I have to give dsss the -L-ldl flag manually when I
compile a Derelict-using program under Linux.
Seems like it shouldn't be neecessary for me to have to specify that.
But who's to blame?
* Is it DMD's fault for not including in the default link libs?
* Is it DSSS's fault for not picking up that it's needed (or for not
puttin it in the default list of flags?)
* Is it Derelict's fault for somehow not telling DSSS that it wants to
use libdl on Linux?
Any of those seem possible. So anyone know the answer?
Or is it just my fault for thinking I shouldn't have to stick a
version(linux) block in my dsss.conf file?
--bb
It may be that it is derelict's fault for not working with the tools, but
there is also the relevant bugzilla entries
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1663
and
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1690
pragma(lib) should be implemented on all platforms, or removed from the spec
entirely. I'd certainly prefer the former, as this probably is the one
thing that a build tool normally cannot do much beyond what the compiler
already does by telling the linker about always needed libraries (like the
runtime).
Apr 12 2008
↑ ↓ ←→ Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
Just wondering why I have to give dsss the -L-ldl flag manually when I
compile a Derelict-using program under Linux.
Seems like it shouldn't be neecessary for me to have to specify that.
But who's to blame?
* Is it DMD's fault for not including in the default link libs?
* Is it DSSS's fault for not picking up that it's needed (or for not
puttin it in the default list of flags?)
* Is it Derelict's fault for somehow not telling DSSS that it wants to
use libdl on Linux?
Any of those seem possible. So anyone know the answer?
Or is it just my fault for thinking I shouldn't have to stick a
version(linux) block in my dsss.conf file?
--bb
That's certainly a problem.
However, Derelict supports DSSS, so that's not really an excuse for
Derelict. It could use DSSS's pragma(link).
--bb
How is that going to help with the final executable? No linking is done
during the compilation of static libraries, so even if I did add that to
Derelict's dsss.conf files, the user would still have to link to libdl
when compiling the executable.
Apr 12 2008
↑ ↓ ←→ Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
That's certainly a problem.
However, Derelict supports DSSS, so that's not really an excuse for
Derelict. It could use DSSS's pragma(link).
--bb
How is that going to help with the final executable? No linking is done
during the compilation of static libraries, so even if I did add that to
Derelict's dsss.conf files, the user would still have to link to libdl
when compiling the executable.
You wouldn't put it in Derelict's dsss.conf, you'd put it in
derelict/util/loader.d. And it would end up in the .di file, where it
would be found by dsss later when users are trying to compile something
that uses loader.
--bb
That's certainly a problem.
However, Derelict supports DSSS, so that's not really an excuse for
Derelict. It could use DSSS's pragma(link).
--bb
How is that going to help with the final executable? No linking is
done during the compilation of static libraries, so even if I did add
that to Derelict's dsss.conf files, the user would still have to link
to libdl when compiling the executable.
You wouldn't put it in Derelict's dsss.conf, you'd put it in
derelict/util/loader.d. And it would end up in the .di file, where it
would be found by dsss later when users are trying to compile something
that uses loader.
I see now. I've updated the Derelict trunk with the pragma link.
Apr 13 2008
↑ ↓ ←→ Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
That's certainly a problem.
However, Derelict supports DSSS, so that's not really an excuse for
Derelict. It could use DSSS's pragma(link).
--bb
How is that going to help with the final executable? No linking is
done during the compilation of static libraries, so even if I did add
that to Derelict's dsss.conf files, the user would still have to link
to libdl when compiling the executable.
You wouldn't put it in Derelict's dsss.conf, you'd put it in
derelict/util/loader.d. And it would end up in the .di file, where it
would be found by dsss later when users are trying to compile something
that uses loader.
I see now. I've updated the Derelict trunk with the pragma link.
For reference, this is where I think that pragma lib should be available
from the compiler instead, such that the correct lib will be linked even
with a different build tool.
--
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango
Apr 13 2008
↑ ↓ ← → Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
However, Derelict supports DSSS, so that's not really an excuse for
Derelict. It could use DSSS's pragma(link).
--bb
done during the compilation of static libraries, so even if I did add
that to Derelict's dsss.conf files, the user would still have to link
to libdl when compiling the executable.
derelict/util/loader.d. And it would end up in the .di file, where it
would be found by dsss later when users are trying to compile something
that uses loader.
For reference, this is where I think that pragma lib should be available
from the compiler instead, such that the correct lib will be linked even
with a different build tool.
Agreed. I think it's yet another one of those things that has been
debated, hailed by all, then ignored, then forgotten.
But DSSS takes the feature from Bud, I believe. So if all D-aware build
tools implement it, then it's not so bad. Of course that doesn't help
'make' users.
Incidentially, this may be a good time to once again bring up Gregor's
proposal of dmd -v spitting out pragmas in addition to imports. It
would make supporting things like pragma("link") much easier for any
build tool that wanted to.
--bb
Just wondering why I have to give dsss the -L-ldl flag manually when I
compile a Derelict-using program under Linux.
Seems like it shouldn't be neecessary for me to have to specify that.
But who's to blame?
* Is it DMD's fault for not including in the default link libs?
* Is it DSSS's fault for not picking up that it's needed (or for not
puttin it in the default list of flags?)
* Is it Derelict's fault for somehow not telling DSSS that it wants to
use libdl on Linux?
Any of those seem possible. So anyone know the answer?
Or is it just my fault for thinking I shouldn't have to stick a
version(linux) block in my dsss.conf file?
--bb
It's sort of the Linux way I guess. You have to do this using C++ to use
any of the dynamic binding functions. A dsss link pragma seems to be the
solution for the moment. Or, you can list lib 'dl' in your dsss.conf and
you will get a warning on windows but it will still link correctly.
buildflags=-g -lldl -debug -unittest -Dddocs -profile
OPTLINK (R) for Win32 Release 8.00.1
Copyright (C) Digital Mars 1989-2004 All rights reserved.
dl.lib
Warning 2: File Not Found dl.lib
Apr 14 2008
↑ ↓ ← → Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Spacen Jasset wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
Just wondering why I have to give dsss the -L-ldl flag manually when I
compile a Derelict-using program under Linux.
Seems like it shouldn't be neecessary for me to have to specify that.
But who's to blame?
* Is it DMD's fault for not including in the default link libs?
* Is it DSSS's fault for not picking up that it's needed (or for not
puttin it in the default list of flags?)
* Is it Derelict's fault for somehow not telling DSSS that it wants to
use libdl on Linux?
Any of those seem possible. So anyone know the answer?
Or is it just my fault for thinking I shouldn't have to stick a
version(linux) block in my dsss.conf file?
--bb
It's sort of the Linux way I guess. You have to do this using C++ to use
any of the dynamic binding functions. A dsss link pragma seems to be the
solution for the moment. Or, you can list lib 'dl' in your dsss.conf and
you will get a warning on windows but it will still link correctly.
buildflags=-g -lldl -debug -unittest -Dddocs -profile
OPTLINK (R) for Win32 Release 8.00.1
Copyright (C) Digital Mars 1989-2004 All rights reserved.
dl.lib
Warning 2: File Not Found dl.lib
Mike/Aldacron added the link pragma to Derelict's svn yesterday. So at
least with DSSS (and bud I think) the -L-ldl is no longer needed for
building programs with Derelict.
--bb
Home
| Search
| C & C++
| D
| DMDScript
| News Groups
| index
| prev
| next