A simple question

[Nick Sabalausky]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 01:11:18 +0100
"Stugol" <stugol at gmx.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, 15 November 2012 at 23:56:49 UTC, David Nadlinger 
> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 15 November 2012 at 21:25:03 UTC, Stugol wrote:
> >> However, when I post on these forums to ask for bugs to be 
> >> fixed (e.g. the defective MODULE keyword, or the linker not 
> >> supporting spaces in paths), you say that's not going to 
> >> happen anytime soon.
> >
> > Please provide links to that statements and the respective 
> > Bugzilla issues. Otherwise, this is a quite … unsubstantial 
> > claim.
> >
> > David
> 
> I didn't use BugZilla, I posted on the forum. It was a few months 
> ago. Feel free to search the forums for my name if you care. 
> There aren't many threads with my name.
> 
> As to the module bug, I refer you to this error I just received 
> after trying to use D again after a long absence:
> 
> "Error 42: Symbol Undefined 
> _D8infinity8standard3api7windows12__ModuleInfoZ
> d:\Documents\Programming\WindowsApp1\WindowsApp1\"
> 
> I reported the above bug in this thread months ago: 
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=stugol&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.digitalmars.com%2Fd%2Farchives%2Fdigitalmars%2FD%2FIncomprehensible_compiler_errors_173731.html&ei=Z4OlUKqOO6Oi0QWir4DAAg&usg=AFQjCNFlgFDSwgjBEWUA1SbimjMK6kNwFg
> 
> Nothing has been done: the bug still exists. Coincidentally, this 
> was the same thread I was told to fuck off in.
> 
> Are these bugs likely to be addressed, or am I likely to be told 
> to fuck off again?


You came in abusive right from the first post in the thread, continued
making snide and contentious remarks even while *most* people were
being polite (even *before* anyone got harsh with you), and you're
continuing the abusiveness in parts of this thread, too. Maybe "fuck
off" is overly harsh, but you certainly shouldn't be surprised that
someone said it considering your consistently poor tone. What might be
surprising though is that some of us are still willing to try to help.

Additionally, issues *are* being fixed all the time. If your particular
ones haven't been among them yet, well, "them's the breaks". I have
issues I've been patiently waiting for, too. So do other people. But
being demanding certainly isn't going to get your issues addressed
first. It's just going to piss people off and make them want to either
ignore you or tell you to fuck off.

As for your specific issue, there's a few different factors:

1. Like other have already said, all the files need to be sent to DMD
together (possibly by using RDMD) or, if not that, then at least their
objects all need to be sent to the linker together. I realize you're
using VisualD and therefore have reason to expect it to be taken care
of automatically, but since something obviously might be going awry in
that regard, you'll need to take it up with the VisualD developer. If
you're nice to him, he might even be glad to help out.

2. If there is indeed an actual bug in the compiler or linker (instead
of either VisualD or your project's VisualD settings), and you want it
addressed promptly (keeping in mind this is a non-commercial venture
and you're not paying anyone for support, so therefore there are NO
timeframe guarantees), then it will help greatly if you provide a test
case (and file it in the bug tracker: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/ )
which fully demonstrates the problem *without* having any reliance on
any tool other than the compiler/linker itself. Yes, this means dealing
with the command line.

3. The linker's error message needs to be better (as many people have
already agreed with you on). The linker itself is written in
highly-optimized assembly (and is in the process of being - very
meticulously - converted to C for easier maintenance, as a stepping
stone to it eventually moving to D), so changes to it *will be* slow.
What *can* be done though, is to pipe its output through a D demangler,
and in fact I think someone's already made such a tool. If you're not
willing to use a direct command line to do that, then you can put in a
request (not a demand) with the VisualD dev to have such functionality
incorporated into VisualD. Or, although this may be a stretch, you
could even offer to help incorporate the change to VisualD yourself.

4. I'm not sure I even see a specific problem in that thread that
hasn't been addressed. First of all, it looks like your DFL problem was
solved by including DFL in your VisualD project's dependencies.
Secondly, I'm not getting your error when I try this:

http://forum.dlang.org/thread/souztdpadfefltnvckcg@forum.dlang.org?page=2#post-djjkyaqnwlsquticjfmw:40forum.dlang.org

Both of those files compile fine for me with DMD 2.060, and if I toss
in a "void main() {}" I even get a working executable.