object.di error

[Iain Buclaw]

On 13 February 2012 17:55, Johannes Pfau <nospam at example.com> wrote:
> Am Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:36:22 +0100
> schrieb Johannes Pfau <nospam at example.com>:
>
>> Yep, anything 'class' related won't work without object.di and
>> probably much more. But to make a app using those features link,
>> object_.d needs to be compiled in as well, and that pulls in some
>> druntime dependencies (not too many), so to ship a minimal working
>> object.di we'd also have to ship a minimal 'runtime' library. I'm not
>> sure what's the right decision here, but it'd be great if could make
>> a minimal compiler work for C-like code with minimal dependencies
>> (one object.di file shipped by default definitely counts as minimal
>> dependencies though).
>
> I guess we should just keep everything as it is. A minimal runtime
> seems too much effort right now and for testing very basic
> functionality it's always possible to create an empty object.di.

I think --disable-libphobos would go hand in hand with some sort of
--default-gdc-lib=FOO.  FOO being the default library the driver
attempts to link to.   This would be for people who have their own
substitute for libphobos, be it a mini druntime, tango, or other
bespoke library.

However the constant should always be that object.di is always
shipped, and the compiler *always* depends on that.


Regards

-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';