Poll of the week: main OS and compiler

[Manu]

On 8 March 2012 15:55, Daniel Murphy <yebblies at nospamgmail.com> wrote:

> "Manu" <turkeyman at gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:mailman.223.1331197934.4860.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
> On 8 March 2012 00:21, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote:
> > Is it possible to just fix the compiler to output COFF objects *without*
> > touching optlink at all?
> > I'm not interested in using optlink with this feature, I intend to link
> > with Visual Studio, that's the whole point. So ignoring optlink, that's a
> > major slice of work taken out of the equation...
> > Maybe it would be nice to support optlink in future, but it seems the
> > priority is backwards.
>
> Yes, it is, but then you still won't be able to link omf and coff object
> files/libraries together, meaning you need a coff version of
> druntime/phobos/any other d libraries, and you can't use the c runtime made
> by dmc etc.
>

That's fine, I would use the mscrt (required to link with all the rest of
my code anyway), and as soon as the feature is available, you can bet your
boots that OMF will cease to exist in windows library distributions
instantly.
When was the last time you saw a closed-source windows library ship with .a
files? Windows library distributions would be VC compatible COFF objects
within days.

Ideally everything would work together, and with a tool that can be bundled
> with D.
>

Optlink is bundled with D, I presume OMF would remain an option as a
standalone 'complete package', but realistically, I don't think virtually
any windows users would use it once they can link with VS.
The kind of Windows user that might use OMF+optlink is the same kind of
user that would be perfectly happy, maybe even prefer to use GDC/LDC.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20120308/4dc6bdcb/attachment.html>