ON TOPIC:
maybe shipping with FPC cygwin runtime libraries for gprof wouldn't harm?
Because:
1. Some are shipped (for FP --- IDE)
2. If I am right, libc, libgcc, libgmon and libkernel32 are needed, they
shouldn't be weightier than some rarely used binary utils
3. Full CYGWIN is not required (as I guess, MINGW is more appropriate
[its rtl], isn't it?)
4. -pg is a compiler option, not some external feature implying
installation of something
BRANCH:
> > Bug number is 4929.
> a valid option. So my statement is still the same - could you be more
> specific what is wrong, please?
> Tomas
Well, it is not a bug.
I even submitted it as compatibility or something. I do call it a bug, because
it was marked "Fixed", not "Not a bug".
BUT:
2.0.3 2006.4.20 does not emit warning, nor do I see one in compiler messages
file. (Maybe you mean "still BUGGY maximum optimize", Ox? [don't mix with older
comments about "still BUGGY!!!" register optimizations])
Sorry for inconveniences.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
