> Пётр Косаревский wrote:
> > Sorry, eight questions ahead (first two are important to me).
Well, only "WHAT I NEED TO RUN GPROF UNDER WIN32?" and "WHY "cannot find -lc"
WHEN COMPILING WITH GPROF SUPPORT?" are real questions. Others were like minor
info/bug reporting (not important to me).
> >> Last time I used gprof on win32, it worked fine?
> >
> > Well, not long ago I was told in these maillists, that gprof requires
> > cygwin under win32 for FPC.
> >
> > Is it normal, that compiler (linking stage) tells: "...ld.exe: cannot find
> > -lc" and fails? (I thought about installing cygwin, but I don't understand
> > what do I need from it.)
> Just guessing here: Most probably libc.dll? Better to be answered by
> someone else.
> > Is it supposed, that I integrate cygwin with FPC or something?
> No, except that you have to provide its runtime libraries.
Well (guess), if you mean, that libc.dll is a part of cygwin, it's not a bad
idea, but "-lc" thing doesn't look like a rebus or a charade, it's like an
enigma:)
> > fpc-2.0.3.i386-win32... required "as.exe" and "ld.exe" (I copied them from
> I'd say so - if you're talking about snapshots, these tools are not
> included in them (as opposed to releases).
You are probably right!
But releases and snapshots don't differ much in their size, so I didn't expect
that about 3% (as.exe and ld.exe) would be dropped intentionally (because they
are needed for functionality). On the other hand, these utilities are not made
by FPC folk. It seems to be the reason for me...
> > Is it OK, that after recent FPC update I have to add "-Sg" for my pretty
> > GOTO (It is objfpc mode, no extra option is required under Delphi)?
> Use -Mdelphi (or {MODE DELPHI}) if you want compatibility to Delphi. Use
> of GOTO (and some other constructs supported by Delphi) isn't considered a
> good programming practice, so it isn't supported by default in native FPC
> modes. If you want to use GOTO in these modes, you need to supply -Sg
> explicitely.
Well, IT CHANGED, I didn't need to use this option before, it contradicts at
least my expectations of objfpc mode.
If you have a little arithmetical procedure you don't want to write in
assembler (by the way, assembler is not interoperable), GOTO is a good thing.
GOTO do exists in PASCAL syntax, and I use it on my own risk. I even saw this
hint in compiler output, but don't understand the reason for this change
(except trying to complicate compilating to user).
I find overcomplicating source with {$IFDEF}-s more confusing, than labels.
> > Is it normal, that with e.g. "-va" switch I see verbosely what was
> > processed before "-va" switch?
> I'm not sure if I understand what you meant here?
It's nonsense: if it is process in time, there should be no extra (verbose)
messages before processing "-va" switch, because compiler is not yet in verbose
mode. I believe, some developers do find that remark hackneyed.
> > Should I bump the "fixed" bug about uncommented compiler option "-Op4" (it
> > is uncommented in both 2.0.3 and 2.1.x versions)?
> I guess it would help to be more specific here - what exactly is wrong,
> please?
See bug #.
> > Is it sufficient to build 2.1.x and rename one of "fpc.exe" to operate
> > both release and development versions (I didn't try, but it seems that the
> > one ppc386 would be run)?
> That depends. It could work if you provide proper fpc.cfg in the compiler
> directory (and no other fpc.cfg exists in other directories) and if you
> make sure to use different output directories for compilation of your own
> units.
I just wanted to avoid experiments and asked for solution:)
> > Should I split this message?
> Not necessarily if you don't mind receiving answers in many pieces
> (different people responding to different parts). ;-)
> Regards
> Tomas
Well, you are the first to answer and the only important question is (now about
gprof) :(
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
