Linux shared libraries - I'm confused

[Tristam MacDonald]

Gregor Richards wrote:
> Tristam MacDonald wrote:
>>
>>
>> Gregor Richards wrote:
>>> Nicolai Waniek wrote:
>>>> Steve Teale wrote:
>>>>> Hmm, well that's a bit of a show-stopper for Linux coding then 
>>>>> isn't it. Am I also correct in thinking that GDC does not support D 
>>>>> version 2 yet?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I definitley have to say: yes, this is a show-stopper.
>>>> I'm still waiting for Walter to make it possible to compiler to an 
>>>> .so under
>>>> Linux... until that, I stopped using D and concentrating on some 
>>>> other projects
>>>> w/ python.
>>>>
>>>> best regards,
>>>> Nicolai
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> What the hell, people, there's an easy solution: Use GDC.
>>>
>>>  - Gregor Richards
>>
>> Not quite as easy as it might be. There seem to be far more pitfalls 
>> to getting a working shared library under D than under C. In addition, 
>> there is still no 2.0 support in GDC.
> 
> So long as the standard library is static instead of shared, it will 
> always be more complicated. If the standard library was shared, this 
> would be simple.
> 
> Oh my god, there's STILL no 2.0 support in GDC after it's existed for 
> almost TWO MONTHS??!?!?! For shame!!! Yeesh.

C'mon man, I didn't mean it like that. Of course there isn't a 2.0 
release yet, and since it is a beta and very subject to change, I am not 
even sure that a GDC 2.0 release is a good idea yet. But if you have a 
project already using 2.0 features, you *aren't able* to switch to GDC 
to get shared library support.

>>
>> On a realated note, it would be nice to get libgphobos working as a 
>> dynamic library with GDC, and shave a few 100K off of my executables...
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=43626 
> 
> 
>  - Gregor Richards

Cool, I will give this a try.