foo at bar.com
Mon Jun 5 18:28:53 PDT 2006
> In article <e624e1$du6$1 at digitaldaemon.com>, kris says...
>>Craig Black wrote:
>>>When will D be able to compile the same source to a .dll on windows and a
>>>.so on Linux?
>>ddl may resolve this
> The trick here is that Walter has ruled out the possibility of 100% binary
> compatibility so using DDL 1.0 as a compile-once* solution is a no-go. But
> should Craig need something that fits the use-case of a dll/so, as a complete
> D-built dynamic lib, then DDL should work nicely.
> * - Some food for thought here: As the ABI below the D compiler level is
> concerned, DMD backs DMC and GDC backs GCC where exception handling and
> real-width (80/100bit) are concerned. This is a good thing as far as linking
> with 'native' dynamic and static libs go. While all this puts the current
> toolset out of the running, it doesn't exclude the possibility of producing
> completely cross-platform binary solution, at the cost of legacy binary
> compatibility. It would just require a custom compiler that backs a stricter
> ABI (maybe by the time we land on the moon again).
> - EricAnderton at yahoo
Perhaps cross-platform binaries might come in useful for those who need
to hide the implementation. But for the rest of us, just having a single
source base that operates on both (without the need to master the
underlying relevant ddl/so mechanics) will be awesome! I suspect it's
the latter that Craig was getting at?
More information about the Digitalmars-d