Optlink Contribution

Joakim via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Wed Jul 30 02:17:04 PDT 2014


On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 09:06:11 UTC, Rikki Cattermole 
wrote:
> On 30/07/2014 8:58 p.m., Joakim wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 30 July 2014 at 08:12:17 UTC, Rikki Cattermole 
>> wrote:
>>> On 30/07/2014 7:03 p.m., Kagamin wrote:
>>>> Making dmd generate coff would make more sense.
>>> +1
>>> Most of the code should already be present in dmd, which 
>>> makes it far
>>> crazier not to.
>>
>> What makes it craziest is that there's a COFF32 branch lying 
>> around that
>> nobody merges:
>>
>> http://forum.dlang.org/thread/mailman.1560.1323886804.24802.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com?page=9#post-llldfc:242q6p:241:40digitalmars.com
>>
>>
>> It would be a far better use of Jonathan's time to get COFF32 
>> merged and
>> obsolete Optlink altogether.
>
> If we obsoleted the OMF format output we would need to have a 
> free and distributed with PE-COFF linker. If we can do this, I 
> think Walter might go along with it.
>
> Unless of course we could convince Microsoft to have a download 
> just for the linker. We could download that in e.g. the 
> installer. Would be better than a full install.

I don't think dmd comes with a COFF64 linker now, users are just 
told to install Visual Studio or the Windows SDK for a linker.  
No reason you can't do the same with COFF32.  Optlink can stick 
around with OMF for a couple releases.  I suspect nobody would 
use it when given the choice of COFF32 support.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list