Re: Compiling DMD on Windows: A journey of mystery and madness
On Sunday, 21 August 2016 at 16:41:27 UTC, NX wrote: I'm amazed by the lack of documentation - or to say it better, documentation that works - on how to compile DMD and eventually Phobos. You're amazement is poised to grow the longer you stay with D. Same with the mental damage.
Re: Compiling DMD on Windows: A journey of mystery and madness
On Tuesday, 23 August 2016 at 20:54:19 UTC, Meta wrote: Except, as of today the two pages have been split and it looks much better. Thanks to whoever did that. Nothing to thank - it wasn't much work, but I did that yesterday, so it was quite funny to observe the conversation ;-)
Re: Compiling DMD on Windows: A journey of mystery and madness
On Tuesday, 23 August 2016 at 19:59:41 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 8/23/2016 10:58 AM, Meta wrote: When your software is free your currency is people's attention. We really don't want to be giving out refunds. I don't like to lose any customers. They do have expectations when they pay money for a product, but I can't teach someone via email how their computer works when all they know is click & drag. I've tried, it ended badly every time. You can't remotely teach someone to fly an F-104 when they don't know what a rudder is. At least with D I can point them to the learn forum. Yes, very true. However, getting back to the complaint of both documentation sets being in a single document: I'm experienced with box Linux-based and Windows-based systems and I still find the combined documentation annoying and a pain because I have to scroll through the Posix stuff every time to get to the Windows section. Except, as of today the two pages have been split and it looks much better. Thanks to whoever did that.
Re: Compiling DMD on Windows: A journey of mystery and madness
On 8/23/2016 10:58 AM, Meta wrote: On Tuesday, 23 August 2016 at 10:28:35 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: Sometimes I have customers that don't know what a command prompt or a subdirectory is, and I've learned to just send their money back. When your software is free your currency is people's attention. We really don't want to be giving out refunds. I don't like to lose any customers. They do have expectations when they pay money for a product, but I can't teach someone via email how their computer works when all they know is click & drag. I've tried, it ended badly every time. You can't remotely teach someone to fly an F-104 when they don't know what a rudder is. At least with D I can point them to the learn forum.
Re: Compiling DMD on Windows: A journey of mystery and madness
On Tuesday, 23 August 2016 at 10:28:35 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 8/23/2016 2:15 AM, ixid wrote: Some users might just about know they're on Windows but have no idea what Posix is so won't know to ignore those parts or will at least be confused and intimidated. The path into using things needs to be as easy as possible. Sometimes I have customers that don't know what a command prompt or a subdirectory is, and I've learned to just send their money back. When your software is free your currency is people's attention. We really don't want to be giving out refunds.
Re: Compiling DMD on Windows: A journey of mystery and madness
On 08/23/2016 10:54 AM, Jack Stouffer wrote: I'll fix it when I have some time. Probably this weekend. Very much appreciated. Thanks! -- Andreui
Re: Compiling DMD on Windows: A journey of mystery and madness
On Sunday, 21 August 2016 at 16:49:53 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: "Awfully categorized" is right. The initial step-by-step document I wrote for Posix got corrupted into this mess. Folks, I have in two instances asked nicely the authors or anyone else to fix this mess. I shouldn't need to worry about this stuff. Posix and Windows interspersed in the same document is not the way to go. Please fix this once and for all by splitting into two documents: one for Posix and one for Windows, thanks. Sorry Andrei, this is the first time I've seen you talk about it. I'll fix it when I have some time. Probably this weekend.
Re: Compiling DMD on Windows: A journey of mystery and madness
On 8/23/2016 2:15 AM, ixid wrote: Some users might just about know they're on Windows but have no idea what Posix is so won't know to ignore those parts or will at least be confused and intimidated. The path into using things needs to be as easy as possible. Sometimes I have customers that don't know what a command prompt or a subdirectory is, and I've learned to just send their money back.
Re: Compiling DMD on Windows: A journey of mystery and madness
On Monday, 22 August 2016 at 02:34:37 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 8/21/2016 12:12 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: How does that work? Aren't step-by-step documents "how to do this on Posix" and "how to do this for Windows" best tested in one environment at a time? I know when I'm following step-by-step procedures, I prefer it to be specific to my case, not a catch-all one with callouts for other cases melded in. Some users might just about know they're on Windows but have no idea what Posix is so won't know to ignore those parts or will at least be confused and intimidated. The path into using things needs to be as easy as possible.
Re: Compiling DMD on Windows: A journey of mystery and madness
On Sunday, 21 August 2016 at 19:12:27 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 08/21/2016 03:01 PM, Seb wrote: because (1) you need less documentation (just one file to document) and Wouldn't it be better to optimize documentation for the reader instead of the writer? After all if reading is impaired, that's bound to make the maintainer unhappy even if she has fewer documents to maintain. (2) the single file will be more tested/bullet-proof. How does that work? Aren't step-by-step documents "how to do this on Posix" and "how to do this for Windows" best tested in one environment at a time? If in both cases the build commands would only be sth. like: build test ... then there would be no need for a second Windows-only document. Anyways sorry about mentioning it - I know that such (a) a change shouldn't be taken lightly and it also may cause additional troubles and What troubles would there be? How were troubles taken into account when the document got modified from its initial Posix-only stance to the current state? I was referring to switching from Makefiles to a different cross-platform tool like reggae, which bears some troubles with it due to many existing setups and infrastructure. Please just fix it with no debate. Sorry, it wasn't intended as a debate, we just posted at the same time initially. https://wiki.dlang.org/Building_under_Posix https://wiki.dlang.org/Building_under_Windows
Re: Compiling DMD on Windows: A journey of mystery and madness
On 8/21/2016 12:12 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: How does that work? Aren't step-by-step documents "how to do this on Posix" and "how to do this for Windows" best tested in one environment at a time? I know when I'm following step-by-step procedures, I prefer it to be specific to my case, not a catch-all one with callouts for other cases melded in.
Re: Compiling DMD on Windows: A journey of mystery and madness
On Sunday, 21 August 2016 at 16:41:27 UTC, NX wrote: crybaby. Real Programmers laughs at you. didn't they tell you that programming means "pain" -- that is the reason they starting with the same letter?
Re: Compiling DMD on Windows: A journey of mystery and madness
On 08/21/2016 03:01 PM, Seb wrote: because (1) you need less documentation (just one file to document) and Wouldn't it be better to optimize documentation for the reader instead of the writer? After all if reading is impaired, that's bound to make the maintainer unhappy even if she has fewer documents to maintain. (2) the single file will be more tested/bullet-proof. How does that work? Aren't step-by-step documents "how to do this on Posix" and "how to do this for Windows" best tested in one environment at a time? Anyways sorry about mentioning it - I know that such (a) a change shouldn't be taken lightly and it also may cause additional troubles and What troubles would there be? How were troubles taken into account when the document got modified from its initial Posix-only stance to the current state? (b) it isn't that related to the problem of the poster. NX has noted the information is there, it's just lost exactly because the document is poorly structured. Is that plausible evidence against your assertion? Please just fix it with no debate. It's mostly a matter of moving Windows-related stuff from this document to another, fresh document. I'm mulling over a big contract for the Foundation. Let me do what I do best. It's the third level this has gotten to my level of consciousness, and that's more than two times too many. Thanks, Andrei
Re: Compiling DMD on Windows: A journey of mystery and madness
On Sunday, 21 August 2016 at 18:57:25 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 08/21/2016 12:56 PM, Seb wrote:
On Sunday, 21 August 2016 at 16:41:27 UTC, NX wrote:
[warning: rant ahead]
I'm amazed by the lack of documentation - or to say it better,
documentation that works - on how to compile DMD and
eventually
Phobos. Here
[https://wiki.dlang.org/Starting_as_a_Contributor#Windows_2]
we have
awfully categorized yet promising information on how to
seriously
compile DMD from source.
There are usually three Makefile posix.mak, win32.mak and
win64.mak.
As you might expect it's quite a pain to keep them updated and
as core
developers on Windows are in the minority, the Windows
Makefiles often
lack features or have other "mysterious ways".
Imho the best way to deal with this problem is to unify the
Makefiles by
(a) using a cross-platform build tool like reggae (see [1] for
one of
the discussions), (b) figure out what commands are possible in
a
cross-platform way and merge win{32, 64}.mak back to the
common Makefile.
[1]
http://forum.dlang.org/post/wckshfgkltmmcgmbb...@forum.dlang.org
How does the makefile unification help the lack of
documentation? -- Andrei
because (1) you need less documentation (just one file to
document) and (2) the single file will be more
tested/bullet-proof.
Anyways sorry about mentioning it - I know that such (a) a change
shouldn't be taken lightly and it also may cause additional
troubles and (b) it isn't that related to the problem of the
poster.
Re: Compiling DMD on Windows: A journey of mystery and madness
On 08/21/2016 12:56 PM, Seb wrote:
On Sunday, 21 August 2016 at 16:41:27 UTC, NX wrote:
[warning: rant ahead]
I'm amazed by the lack of documentation - or to say it better,
documentation that works - on how to compile DMD and eventually
Phobos. Here
[https://wiki.dlang.org/Starting_as_a_Contributor#Windows_2] we have
awfully categorized yet promising information on how to seriously
compile DMD from source.
There are usually three Makefile posix.mak, win32.mak and win64.mak.
As you might expect it's quite a pain to keep them updated and as core
developers on Windows are in the minority, the Windows Makefiles often
lack features or have other "mysterious ways".
Imho the best way to deal with this problem is to unify the Makefiles by
(a) using a cross-platform build tool like reggae (see [1] for one of
the discussions), (b) figure out what commands are possible in a
cross-platform way and merge win{32, 64}.mak back to the common Makefile.
[1] http://forum.dlang.org/post/wckshfgkltmmcgmbb...@forum.dlang.org
How does the makefile unification help the lack of documentation? -- Andrei
Re: Compiling DMD on Windows: A journey of mystery and madness
On Sunday, 21 August 2016 at 16:49:53 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: On 08/21/2016 12:41 PM, NX wrote: For God's sake no place in docs say that I need DMC, which is something I figured from make error output. I reinstalled dmd and this time I checked that box which makes installer automatically download and install dmc. After making dmc available from %path%, I was able to compile phobos, that seemed too good to be true. Might be nice to contribute this tidbit to the wiki. Actually I just noticed that it *is* actually mentioned: https://wiki.dlang.org/Starting_as_a_Contributor#Windows This kind of shows how an unstructured doc can result in info-missing by people...
Re: Compiling DMD on Windows: A journey of mystery and madness
On Sunday, 21 August 2016 at 16:41:27 UTC, NX wrote:
[warning: rant ahead]
I'm amazed by the lack of documentation - or to say it better,
documentation that works - on how to compile DMD and eventually
Phobos. Here
[https://wiki.dlang.org/Starting_as_a_Contributor#Windows_2] we
have awfully categorized yet promising information on how to
seriously compile DMD from source.
There are usually three Makefile posix.mak, win32.mak and
win64.mak.
As you might expect it's quite a pain to keep them updated and as
core developers on Windows are in the minority, the Windows
Makefiles often lack features or have other "mysterious ways".
Imho the best way to deal with this problem is to unify the
Makefiles by (a) using a cross-platform build tool like reggae
(see [1] for one of the discussions), (b) figure out what
commands are possible in a cross-platform way and merge win{32,
64}.mak back to the common Makefile.
[1]
http://forum.dlang.org/post/wckshfgkltmmcgmbb...@forum.dlang.org
Re: Compiling DMD on Windows: A journey of mystery and madness
On Sunday, 21 August 2016 at 16:41:27 UTC, NX wrote: [warning: rant ahead] Consider using Digger ( https://github.com/CyberShadow/Digger ) in your future attempts to build DMD, to save yourself some trouble. I've had a great experience using it, apart from the dependency on visual studio.
Re: Compiling DMD on Windows: A journey of mystery and madness
On 08/21/2016 12:41 PM, NX wrote: [warning: rant ahead] I'm amazed by the lack of documentation - or to say it better, documentation that works - on how to compile DMD and eventually Phobos. Here [https://wiki.dlang.org/Starting_as_a_Contributor#Windows_2] we have awfully categorized yet promising information on how to seriously compile DMD from source. "Awfully categorized" is right. The initial step-by-step document I wrote for Posix got corrupted into this mess. Folks, I have in two instances asked nicely the authors or anyone else to fix this mess. I shouldn't need to worry about this stuff. Posix and Windows interspersed in the same document is not the way to go. Please fix this once and for all by splitting into two documents: one for Posix and one for Windows, thanks. Before I compile dmd, I attempted to compile druntime & phobos and failed miserably. Hmmm, I'd think dmd would be the first to build. Even the botched document sequences things that way. For God's sake no place in docs say that I need DMC, which is something I figured from make error output. I reinstalled dmd and this time I checked that box which makes installer automatically download and install dmc. After making dmc available from %path%, I was able to compile phobos, that seemed too good to be true. Might be nice to contribute this tidbit to the wiki. Then here comes the part about compiling dmd: > $ make -fwin32.mak release This innocent looking command which supposed to compile dmd failed with an error message that killed my brain cells: $ run idgen $ Error: 'run' not found WTF? Are we seriously trying to execute "run"? Ohh the horror! Walking on the edge of going mad, I noticed a horrible detail in win32.mak file: # D compiler (set with env variable) #HOST_DC=dmd The fact that HOST_DC=dmd is commented out and not being defined as an environment variable is shameful to the max. After fixing make file, I was finally able to compile dmd. Now I want to sue D Language Foundation for dealing me mental damage. Thanks for reading. Thanks for bearing through it. A post will scroll into yesterday's news. A change to the wiki is the way to go. Thanks, Andrei
Compiling DMD on Windows: A journey of mystery and madness
[warning: rant ahead] I'm amazed by the lack of documentation - or to say it better, documentation that works - on how to compile DMD and eventually Phobos. Here [https://wiki.dlang.org/Starting_as_a_Contributor#Windows_2] we have awfully categorized yet promising information on how to seriously compile DMD from source. Before I compile dmd, I attempted to compile druntime & phobos and failed miserably. For God's sake no place in docs say that I need DMC, which is something I figured from make error output. I reinstalled dmd and this time I checked that box which makes installer automatically download and install dmc. After making dmc available from %path%, I was able to compile phobos, that seemed too good to be true. Then here comes the part about compiling dmd: $ make -fwin32.mak release This innocent looking command which supposed to compile dmd failed with an error message that killed my brain cells: $ run idgen $ Error: 'run' not found WTF? Are we seriously trying to execute "run"? Ohh the horror! Walking on the edge of going mad, I noticed a horrible detail in win32.mak file: # D compiler (set with env variable) #HOST_DC=dmd The fact that HOST_DC=dmd is commented out and not being defined as an environment variable is shameful to the max. After fixing make file, I was finally able to compile dmd. Now I want to sue D Language Foundation for dealing me mental damage. Thanks for reading.
Re: Compiling dmd on Windows
On Saturday, 1 February 2014 at 19:28:54 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote: On 2/1/14, Paulo Pinto wrote: Shouldn't those makefiles use Windows only tools? Those makefiles should be just one makefile that works across platforms by using GNU Make, but some people love the idea of maintaining 10 different makefiles that are already awfully out of sync, all because DM Make exists. Actually there should something along the lines of a CMakeLists.txt so you are free to use whatever you want, including IDEs.
Re: Compiling dmd on Windows
On 2/1/14, Paulo Pinto wrote: > Shouldn't those makefiles use Windows only tools? Those makefiles should be just one makefile that works across platforms by using GNU Make, but some people love the idea of maintaining 10 different makefiles that are already awfully out of sync, all because DM Make exists.
Re: Compiling dmd on Windows
On 1.2.2014. 10:40, luka8088 wrote: > On 1.2.2014. 9:13, Paulo Pinto wrote: >> Hi, >> >> is there any page on how to compile the whole dmd, druntime and phobos >> on Windows? >> >> I am facing a few issues with me hacking around win32.mak files, related >> to tools location, missing tools(detab) and expected UNIX tools (e.g. cp >> instead of copy). >> >> -- >> Paulo > > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18386187/contribute.html > Just a disclaimer (as I see that author is not pointer out). This was not written by me, and I found this link somewhere on the newsgroup some time ago.
Re: Compiling dmd on Windows
On Saturday, 1 February 2014 at 08:13:17 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote: Hi, is there any page on how to compile the whole dmd, druntime and phobos on Windows? I am facing a few issues with me hacking around win32.mak files, related to tools location, missing tools(detab) and expected UNIX tools (e.g. cp instead of copy). -- Paulo Last I tried, all that was needed was to download dmc and run make -f win32.mak.
Re: Compiling dmd on Windows
Am 01.02.2014 09:33, schrieb Andrej Mitrovic: On 2/1/14, Paulo Pinto wrote: Hi, is there any page on how to compile the whole dmd, druntime and phobos on Windows? This is the guide that I wrote a while ago: http://wiki.dlang.org/Using_Git_on_Windows If you get ASM errors while building: http://wiki.dlang.org/Building_DMD#Common_Windows_issues Thanks for point it out, going though it now. Shouldn't those makefiles use Windows only tools? -- Paulo
Re: Compiling dmd on Windows
On 2/1/14, Paulo Pinto wrote: > Hi, > > is there any page on how to compile the whole dmd, druntime and phobos > on Windows? This is the guide that I wrote a while ago: http://wiki.dlang.org/Using_Git_on_Windows If you get ASM errors while building: http://wiki.dlang.org/Building_DMD#Common_Windows_issues
Compiling dmd on Windows
Hi, is there any page on how to compile the whole dmd, druntime and phobos on Windows? I am facing a few issues with me hacking around win32.mak files, related to tools location, missing tools(detab) and expected UNIX tools (e.g. cp instead of copy). -- Paulo
