Criteria for 1.0 (was: Re: If D becomes a failure, what's the key reason, do you think?)

[BCS]

Kirk McDonald wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
> 
>> Kirk McDonald wrote:
>>
>>> Here's something that has been annoying me, and this week-old thread 
>>> is as good a place as any to bring it up: Shared library support on 
>>> Linux. I could not take D seriously if it did a "1.0" release without 
>>> this. I do hate to cram more on your plate, Walter, but I consider 
>>> this a more serious issue than even this import thing that has 
>>> gripped the newsgroup for the past week.
>>
>>
>>
>> I know about the shared library issue on Linux. And to tell the truth, 
>> I've been procrastinating on it. The big job, -fPIC, is done. I don't 
>> know how much beyond that needs to be done.
>>
>> Will the shared libraries work with GDC?
> 
> 
> Ha! Well, at least this simple case does:
> 
[proof]
> 
> Sweet. However, I am a little concerned. When making DLLs on Windows, 
> there is some boilerplate code needed to initialize and shut down the GC 
> and do some other routine things. Is something like that needed here?
> 


Doesn't said boilerplate consist of linking the GC of the calling 
program in to the GC of the called so? why not do it the other way 
around? place the GC in its own so and have everything else link in to 
it? Not too clean for small projects but once you are using so's anyway 
it would be cleaner than putting gc hookup code all over the place.