dmd -c behaviour doesn't take account of packages.

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Wednesday, February 22, 2012 23:33:57 Bernard Helyer wrote:
> On Wednesday, 22 February 2012 at 22:05:51 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
> 
> wrote:
> > Then what happens when you have
> > 
> > dmc -c foo/a.d foo_a.d
> 
> Good point.
> 
> > Regardless, I really wouldn't like the idea of screwing with
> > the object file
> > names to try and avoid collisions.
> 
> Well, the thing is in this case everything is being passed to the
> compiler. It knows the names of everything. But yeah, I think
> complaining is fine _if_ dmd allows individual modules to be
> named explicitly. Otherwise, all in one is good. But really, even
> prefixing it would be better than what we have now. What about
> 'module.foo_a.o' if foo_a isn't in a package?

I really think that it should either put it in a single object file or complain 
and disallow it. Really, the correct way to build such modules is to put each 
object file in a directory hierarchy which matches the modules. Anything else 
is a mess. But that's the job a build tool, not the compiler. So, it should do 
what's reasonable, which doesn't include renaming files to avoid module 
collisions IMHO.

- Jonathan M Davis