[dmd-beta] 64 bit beta for Linux

Jonathan M Davis jmdavisProg at gmx.com
Sun Feb 6 17:42:29 PST 2011

On Sunday 06 February 2011 17:25:02 Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Sunday 06 February 2011 17:08:35 Rainer Schuetze wrote:
> > Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > > Do _not_ expect your code to work if you compile with ddoc enabled.
> > 
> > That's what I was afraid of ;-) The dmd command line interface suggests
> > that you could do so, and so does Visual D. I'd hate to do have to split
> > it into two commands, as this will probably double the compilation time.
> There's too much that has to be special cased for ddoc to be used for a
> normal build. For instance, if you want the documentation to be able to
> build on multiple platforms (which unfortunately, Phobos wasn't doing, but
> some of it now is), you _have_ to have a separate version(D_Ddoc) section
> in many cases. Also, in cases where you want to be able to clean up the
> documentation (std.algorithm would be a good candidate, for instance), you
> may be forced to have a separate, simplified version just for ddoc
> generation. So, ultimately, it just doesn't work to build the
> documentation as part of a normal build. However, it _is_ a mistake that I
> expect that many people will make. _I_ made it before I came to better
> understand the situation. But it quickly becomes obvious once you have
> code which is OS-specific, and you want to the same docs to be generated
> on all OSes.
> On the bright side, ddoc builds will generally be faster than other builds
> because many of the functions will be stubs (at least, if the code in
> question uses version(D_Ddoc) at all like Phobos does).

I've create an enhancement request for -D to not generae an executable - or at 
the very least that the dmd documentation would make it clear that -D won't 
necessarily generate valid code.

- Jonathan m Davis

More information about the dmd-beta mailing list