GCC-compatible dmd shell wrapper?

[Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d]

On 17 Oct 2015 11:50 am, "Shriramana Sharma via Digitalmars-d" <
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>
> Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
> >> I previously had some serious problems with GDC so never tried that
ever
> >> again, but dmd, ldmd2 and ldc2 all generally have the same syntax, esp.
> >> w.r.t missing -o...
> >>
> >>
> > Where's the bug report?
>
>
http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.572.1370073456.13711.digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com
>
>
http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.573.1370076049.13711.digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com
>
> Both dated 2013-Jun-01.
>
> The initial post I started that thread with was on the previous day:
>
http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.520.1370020486.13711.digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com
>
> And I had even provided a stacktrace at:
>
http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.551.1370044498.13711.digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com
>
> Now I'm scared off of even installing gdc on my system, sorry!
>
> --
> Shriramana Sharma, Penguin #395953

Looking at that backtrace I can only speculate.  Segfault in dso registry -
how stable was dmd's shared library support back then?

If you are certain that it only started segfaulting after installing
gdc-4.6, the only other case to speculate is what was the default gcc
version?

I can't see having two versions of gcc installed being a problem - as what
would have undoubtedly happened if the defaults-gcc package was 4.7 or
later, but I question how dmd did it's linking back then.  It used to call
gcc, but now calls ld directly now though, right?

In any case, dmd shared library support, or linking against a unsupported C
runtime, had the person asked you to run ldd against the broken binary,
probably would have guessed one or the other.

In any case neither directly relate to each other - different library names
different module paths - so I still have doubts over your claims.

The most common reason I'm aware of is having two versions of dmd installed.

But if you are unfamiliar with a package system you always seem to find
ways to break it that don't make much sense.

That's the long answer for "You should not be able to reproduce your
problem should you do the same again, and if you do, I'd eat my hat".

Iain.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20151017/acb08d23/attachment.html>