X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
Date:	Mon, 3 Dec 2001 19:26:01 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
Subject:	Re: Building a profiled version of libc
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.LNX.4.10.10112031656530.8155-100000@acp3bf>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1011203192314.19779C@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:

> > > A similar trick may still work: provide a dummy libc_p.a in djdev204,
> > > and the real one in djpro204 or whatever we call it.
> > 
> > Why bother?  
> 
> Because we probably should avoid end users having to edit spec files.  At
> almost all costs.  And overriding the specs file by a djpro204
> installation sounds like a FAQ or worse waiting to happen. So a single
> specs file but two copies of libc_p.a might be a way out of that.
> 
> > We support this today, without any changes and without any dummy
> > libraries.
> 
> Do we? Of course, the knowledgeable user could just remember to manually
> put -lc_p at the end of his link line.

There's a misunderstanding here, I think: the change you suggested for 
specs allows one to link with -pg without having libc_p.a.  But we 
already support this today, since linking with -pg uses libc.a.  Linking 
with -profile isn't supported today, but will also be unsupported with 
your change, since libc_p.a is not distributed with djdev.

So it seems to me pointless to make that change in specs. 

- Raw text -