Compilation strategy

[Iain Buclaw]

On 16 December 2012 02:53, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw at ubuntu.com> wrote:

> On 15 December 2012 18:52, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, December 15, 2012 10:44:56 H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> > Isn't that just some compiler bugs that sometimes cause certain symbols
>> > not to be instantiated in the object file? IMO, such bugs should be
>> > fixed in the compiler, rather than force the user to compile one way or
>> > another.
>>
>> Well obviously. They're bugs. Of course they should be fixed. But as long
>> as
>> they haven't been fixed, we have to work around them, which means
>> compiling
>> everything at once.
>>
>> - Jonathan M Davis
>>
>
>
> Probably won't be easy (if bug still exists).  To describe it (I'll try to
> find a working example later) - when compiled separately, both modules
> claim the symbol is extern to their scope.  However when compiled under one
> compilation unit, the compiler has substantially more information regarding
> the symbol and sends it to the backend to be written.
>

Respective bugs, all been open for around 3 years.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3745
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3770


-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20121216/6dd346ea/attachment.html>