dmd -c behaviour doesn't take account of packages.
doob at me.com
Thu Feb 23 04:40:34 PST 2012
On 2012-02-22 23:33, Bernard Helyer wrote:
> On Wednesday, 22 February 2012 at 22:05:51 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> Then what happens when you have
>> dmc -c foo/a.d foo_a.d
> Good point.
>> Regardless, I really wouldn't like the idea of screwing with the
>> object file
>> names to try and avoid collisions.
> Well, the thing is in this case everything is being passed to the
> compiler. It knows the names of everything. But yeah, I think
> complaining is fine _if_ dmd allows individual modules to be named
> explicitly. Otherwise, all in one is good. But really, even prefixing it
> would be better than what we have now. What about 'module.foo_a.o' if
> foo_a isn't in a package?
See my reply to Jonathan:
More information about the Digitalmars-d