Why is libphobos not a shared library?
Matt.Caron at redlion.net
Thu Jun 14 08:14:21 PDT 2012
On 06/14/2012 10:28 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> If the idea is to cram as much into 16MB of NAND, I would suggest that
> you avoid building libphobos at all, and just have the libdruntime
Is there documentation as to what things are in which library?
(Apologies if this is a stupid question - I haven't dug into the
implementation details of D heavily yet.)
Specifically, in the short term, we're interested in:
(and, likely more, but those are what occur to me off the top of my head).
> I will need to add this as a switch to the build for you.
> If you need any guidance on building as a shared library, I'll be
> available on IRC from around 7.30pm GMT+0 time. Either on Freenode or
> OFTC in #d and #d.gdc.
I appreciate the invite, but this is not really a short-term plan. I
apologize if my email came off as implying more urgency than we actually
have, and I don't want to take up a lot of your time on something that
is some months off, if at all.
For a bit of background, my opinion is that D is going to be the next
awesome systems programming language, eventually replacing C for most
applications. It has all the nice features of Java and C#, while still
being (reasonably) light and as fast as C in execution. I'm trying to
get my company set up to use this now, so that we build familiarity with
it. As such, the first step is to get GDC on ARM (which I have done).
The need for shared libraries is something that I see on the horizon (if
we do end up utilizing D heavily), but not something that is urgent today.
Of course, we do sell a line of products that are essentially
industrially-hardened embedded Linux computers. If customers start
asking for D instead of C, the above will become more accelerated.
Matthew Caron, Build Engineer
Sixnet, a Red Lion business | www.sixnet.com
+1 (518) 877-5173 x138 office
More information about the D.gnu