[dmd-beta] 64 bit beta for Linux

Jonathan M Davis jmdavisProg at gmx.com
Sun Feb 6 18:27:38 PST 2011

On Sunday 06 February 2011 18:05:27 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Again, all we need to do is use a different macro than the default one.
> In hindsight, using D_Ddoc is a mistake as the user does not want to
> generate docs for Phobos but she does want to import stuff from it.

So, essentially we decide to treat druntime and Phobos differently with regards 
to documentation by using a different macro on the assumption that no one wants 
to build their ddoc documentation normally?

I'm not sure how this really solves the problem. Anyone who is building their 
own code with version(D_Ddoc) blocks will find the problem relatively quickly but 
they at least will then know how to fix it (don't build your code with -D and 
generate your documentation separately). For projects that _don't_ have that 
problem but use druntime and Phobos, wouldn't they either just use prebuilt 
libraries for them or use druntime and Phobos' makefiles when building them, at 
which point whether they use -D on their project or not has nothing to do with 
druntime or Phobos.

Or am I missing something here? Are people building druntime and Phobos without 
their makefiles? Then again, I'm not entirely clear how Rainer ran into this 
problem in the first place.

I would expect this to be a problem when you're building code with -D _and_ that 
code uses version(D_Ddoc) _and_ you want to build the code, not the 
documentation. Other than that, I don't see how it would be a problem. That 
being the case, if people either use the released binaries for druntime or 
phobos, or if they use the makefiles that come with them (as you'd expect), then 
there is no problem. Unless they're building druntime and/or phobos _with_ the 
documentation with the idea that they'd _also_ use the binaries, but that seems 
unlikely to me.

- Jonathan M Davis

More information about the dmd-beta mailing list