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 <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.4.10.10112031229310.8155-100000@acp3bf>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1011203170523.18561B-100000@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:

> > 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.

- Raw text -