X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
X-Authentication-Warning:	acp3bf.physik.rwth-aachen.de: broeker owned process doing -bs
Date:	Mon, 3 Dec 2001 18:53:27 +0100 (MET)
From:	Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
X-Sender:	broeker AT acp3bf
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Building a profiled version of libc
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1011203192314.19779C@is>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.4.10.10112031830250.8155-100000@acp3bf>
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, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> 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.

Agreed.  So let's try to recapitulate from the beginning.

As I see it, the original question was how to make use of the profiling
version of libc, once we're sure we know how to build one.  To use it
seamlessly, we should edit the specs file to make GCC look for libc_p.a in
-pg mode (or -profile, if we were to follow Linux here). Requiring people
to -lc_p would work, too, but that'd be a bit of an unconventional
approach and beg for new FAQs.

I'm not quite sure which of djdev*.zip or gcc*b.zip would contain the
"official" specs file for a future DJGPP 2.04.  If it's GCC, we're in a
bit of chicken-and-egg trouble: we would have to tie two releases of GCC
and DJGPP together to synch the change to specs and the addition of
libc_p.a to djdev.  Otherwise, we'ld either break -pg compilations for
users with the wrong DJGPP versions (without libc_p.a), or our nice new
libc_p.a would rot away unused because GCC doesn't know about it.

If the official specs is in djdev204.zip instead, all should be well. 

The next question then is whether it's worth copying libc_p.a to every
user's harddisk when quite a lot of them haven't ever heard of gprof yet.
If the answer to that is "yes", all is still well.

If no, a separate distribution would be better. Let's call that
djpro204.zip tentatively.  But then, we would have two different setups to
cover: with and without djpro204.zip installed.  Unless specs files or the
linker have a "do this only if you can find a library named ....,
otherwise silently do nothing" feature I've never heard about, I think
this would require either two versions of the specs file, or two versions
of libc_p.a.

-- 
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.

- Raw text -