X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 17:08:58 +0200 (IST) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: Hans-Bernhard Broeker cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, Richard Dawe Subject: Re: Building a profiled version of libc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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 Precedence: bulk On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote: > > We cannot update specs until and unless we distribute libc_p.a as part of > > djdev. If we update specs now, users will be unable to link with -pg, > > since GCC will complain about a missing libc_p. > > Not quite. Note that the linux spec reads > > ... %{profile:-lc_p} %{!profile:-lc} > > This means -lc_p only gets called if you link with "-profile", but not > with "-pg". "-pg" only influences the choice of crt1.o startup file. So > "-profile" means more than "-pg": it means you want to profile libc > itself, too, not just your own code. Yes, but how does this contradict what I said above? You cannot make even this change without having libc_p.a in djdev. OTOH, if all you want is to link with the same libc.a under -pg, we support that now, without any changes. Am I missing something? > We already do have a libc_p in djdev203.zip, IIRC. No, you are mistaken. We have a dummy libpc.a, for compatibility with vintage v1.x Makefile's, but that's a different story. > 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? We support this today, without any changes and without any dummy libraries.