On Friday, 11 February 2011 at 19:11:28 UTC, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Am 11.02.2011 19:56, schrieb Dmitry Olshansky:
Ok, bumping this up with the latest news from UniLink
developers:
quote
Ok, we release it's as D extension in next release.
Best regards,
UniLink
/quote
That's just plain
17-Jan-2013 19:22, Kurt Nagel пишет:
On Friday, 11 February 2011 at 19:11:28 UTC, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Am 11.02.2011 19:56, schrieb Dmitry Olshansky:
Ok, bumping this up with the latest news from UniLink developers:
quote
Ok, we release it's as D extension in next release.
Best regards,
Changing the object module format is not sufficient. The symbolic debug
info would have to be changed (and Microsoft's is undocumented) and then
there's the dependency on Microsoft's C runtime library if linking with VC
generated object files.
I found some doc there:
Akakima wrote:
Changing the object module format is not sufficient. The symbolic debug
info would have to be changed (and Microsoft's is undocumented) and then
there's the dependency on Microsoft's C runtime library if linking with VC
generated object files.
I found some doc there:
Walter Bright wrote:
Akakima wrote:
Changing the object module format is not sufficient. The symbolic debug
info would have to be changed (and Microsoft's is undocumented) and then
there's the dependency on Microsoft's C runtime library if linking with
VC generated object files.
I found
Lutger Blijdestijn wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Akakima wrote:
Changing the object module format is not sufficient. The symbolic debug
info would have to be changed (and Microsoft's is undocumented) and then
there's the dependency on Microsoft's C runtime library if linking with
VC generated
Hopefully that release will come soon ;)
Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Ok, bumping this up with the latest news from UniLink developers:
quote
Ok, we release it's as D extension in next release.
Best regards,
UniLink
/quote
That's just plain awesome ;)
yeah, it would be great to be able to link against anything else in the
windows
On 2/12/11, Rainer Schuetze r.sagita...@gmx.de wrote:
BTW: The authors seem to plan to make unilink a commercial product.
Here's a quote from the help file: If current version of UniLink is
beta (all other versions are commercial and can't be used w/o license),
keep in mind, any beta will
On 2/12/11 3:30 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
What linker does GDC use on Windows? And has anyone had any success
with using it on Windows?
IIRC, it emits COFF and uses the ld from MinGW to link.
David
On 2/12/11, David Nadlinger s...@klickverbot.at wrote:
On 2/12/11 3:30 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
What linker does GDC use on Windows? And has anyone had any success
with using it on Windows?
IIRC, it emits COFF and uses the ld from MinGW to link.
David
That's nice to know. I'll give GDC
On 12.02.2011 16:32, Rainer Schuetze wrote:
Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Ok, bumping this up with the latest news from UniLink developers:
quote
Ok, we release it's as D extension in next release.
Best regards,
UniLink
/quote
That's just plain awesome ;)
yeah, it would be great to be able
Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Great, from one closed-source linker to another.
Making optlink open source won't make any difference. Few are skilled at asm
anymore, and likely none of them would want to work on optlink for free.
On 2/12/11, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Great, from one closed-source linker to another.
Making optlink open source won't make any difference. Few are skilled at asm
anymore, and likely none of them would want to work on optlink for free.
Ok, but
Making optlink open source won't make any difference. Few are skilled at
asm anymore, and likely none of them would want to work on optlink for
free.
That's true. But the real problem is not optlink. Optlink is a very good
linker.
The problem is OMF. 11 years ago OMF was a good choice. But
Andrej Mitrovic Wrote:
On 2/12/11, Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Great, from one closed-source linker to another.
Making optlink open source won't make any difference. Few are skilled at asm
anymore, and likely none of them would want to work on
Akakima wrote:
Making optlink open source won't make any difference. Few are skilled at
asm anymore, and likely none of them would want to work on optlink for
free.
That's true. But the real problem is not optlink. Optlink is a very good
linker.
The problem is OMF. 11 years ago OMF was a
Walter:
Changing the object module format is not sufficient. The symbolic debug info
would have to be changed (and Microsoft's is undocumented) and then there's
the
dependency on Microsoft's C runtime library if linking with VC generated
object
files.
What about linking with MinGW
On Saturday 12 February 2011 17:09:36 Walter Bright wrote:
Akakima wrote:
Making optlink open source won't make any difference. Few are skilled at
asm anymore, and likely none of them would want to work on optlink for
free.
That's true. But the real problem is not optlink. Optlink is a
Ok, bumping this up with the latest news from UniLink developers:
quote
Ok, we release it's as D extension in next release.
Best regards,
UniLink
/quote
That's just plain awesome ;)
--
Dmitry Olshansky
Am 11.02.2011 19:56, schrieb Dmitry Olshansky:
Ok, bumping this up with the latest news from UniLink developers:
quote
Ok, we release it's as D extension in next release.
Best regards,
UniLink
/quote
That's just plain awesome ;)
Great :)
On 2/11/11 12:56 PM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Ok, bumping this up with the latest news from UniLink developers:
quote
Ok, we release it's as D extension in next release.
Best regards,
UniLink
/quote
That's just plain awesome ;)
Is UniLink working with 64 bits?
Andrei
On 12.02.2011 3:13, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/11/11 12:56 PM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Ok, bumping this up with the latest news from UniLink developers:
quote
Ok, we release it's as D extension in next release.
Best regards,
UniLink
/quote
That's just plain awesome ;)
Is UniLink
Just another thought:
dmd uses ld on linux, couldn't it use MinGW's ld on Windows?
MinGW's ld doesn't use the same object format as DMD/DMC
I know, of course this would include discarding OMF.
I found this gem in digitalmars' bookshelf:
http://www.digitalmars.com/bibliography.html#fileformats
Just another thought:
dmd uses ld on linux, couldn't it use MinGW's ld on Windows?
I wonder why this tool isn't promoted in any way, no website etc.
I also wonder if he was willing to make it open-source. Then we could help
support D and if it works someday, we can even include D symbol demangling :)
On 28.01.2011 13:21, Trass3r wrote:
I wonder why this tool isn't promoted in any way, no website etc.
That's actually strange and funny in it's own right.
I got to this ftp only because I was 100% sure that tool existed, as a
friend of mine suggested to use it instead of Borland's crappy
On 26.01.2011 21:52, Walter Bright wrote:
Trass3r wrote:
Walter Bright Wrote:
Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Well, anyway I can mail him and hope that he will do it just out of
curiosity, what's yours relevant email then?
May I just as well tell him that you are interested in it or anything?
My
I've got their detailed report on the sample object file, and relayed it
to Walter.
Something related to D's stance on TLS it seems.
With me being middle man all this can take some extra time, but I don't
mind.
The end result may still well worth it.
Hope so too.
Walter Bright Wrote:
Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Well, anyway I can mail him and hope that he will do it just out of
curiosity, what's yours relevant email then?
May I just as well tell him that you are interested in it or anything?
My offer is if there is something specific about the
Trass3r wrote:
Walter Bright Wrote:
Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Well, anyway I can mail him and hope that he will do it just out of
curiosity, what's yours relevant email then?
May I just as well tell him that you are interested in it or anything?
My offer is if there is something specific about
After hitting some troubles with optlink in the past (though my problems
got solved others may be not)
I was in constant search for alternatives.
The good news:
there *do* happen to be very versatile linker for windows able to
produce 32/64bit PE, that supports OMF format and so on. Another
Yeah I can reproduce the same thing as you have.
I did manage to convert an OMF to COFF file format, and link it with
GCC (MinGW). See my thread here:
http://www.digitalmars.com/pnews/read.php?server=news.digitalmars.comgroup=digitalmars.Dartnum=127079
I have yet to try it on more complex
Perhaps this page would be helpful for the linker guys:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/abi.html
On 23.01.2011 20:43, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Yeah I can reproduce the same thing as you have.
I did manage to convert an OMF to COFF file format, and link it with
GCC (MinGW). See my thread here:
Yeah, we're kind of stuck with Optlink for now.
Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
If the D becomes common used language we can examine its new
features and take in into consideration. But... Maybe is's easier to
contact with D developer and ask for new features in objects.
If the author wants to email me with any specific questions, I'd be happy to
On 23.01.2011 23:55, Walter Bright wrote:
Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
If the D becomes common used language we can examine its new
features and take in into consideration. But... Maybe is's easier to
contact with D developer and ask for new features in objects.
If the author wants to email me
Hopefully we can get the author to support dmd.
I can't wait years until optlink might support x64.
Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 23.01.2011 23:55, Walter Bright wrote:
Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
If the D becomes common used language we can examine its new
features and take in into consideration. But... Maybe is's easier to
contact with D developer and ask for new features in objects.
If the
41 matches
Mail list logo
