Adam has removed the '_d' library name suffix for debug libraries ... a
very welcome
change which will make everything simpler and less liable to break :-)
I think having done this, we lost the ability to have debug and non-debug
libs at the
same time, so we can simplify everything a lot ... witho
On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 18:47 +0200, Nicola Pero wrote:
> Adam has removed the '_d' library name suffix for debug libraries ... a
> very welcome
> change which will make everything simpler and less liable to break :-)
>
> I think having done this, we lost the ability to have debug and non-debug
> li
On Sep 7, 2006, at 12:47 PM, Nicola Pero wrote:
1. remove the difference between shared_obj, shared_debug_obj,
static_profile_obj, etc. too. Just use './obj' for everything
(this is
kind of a no-brainer, now that there is no longer any difference in
the
installed libraries, can't see any
I remember all the problem the which_lib tool did cause me, when trying
to cross compile GNUstep. When it is finally gone, I may give cross
compilation another go.
Fred
___
Gnustep-dev mailing list
Gnustep-dev@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/lis
On Sep 7, 2006, at 19:11, Adrian Robert wrote:
This is probably best for simplification as you say but it will
impose a cost to switching back and forth between, e.g., profiled
and non-profiled versions.
Do you actually use profiling with gprof? I've always used
KCachegrind in the last few
On Sep 7, 2006, at 2:00 PM, Helge Hess wrote:
On Sep 7, 2006, at 19:11, Adrian Robert wrote:
This is probably best for simplification as you say but it will
impose a cost to switching back and forth between, e.g., profiled
and non-profiled versions.
Do you actually use profiling with gpro
>> 1. remove the difference between shared_obj, shared_debug_obj,
>> static_profile_obj, etc. too. Just use './obj' for everything
>> (this is kind of a no-brainer, now that there is no longer any
difference in the
>> installed libraries, can't see any reason to keep a difference while
>> buildi
On Sep 7, 2006, at 2:08 PM, Nicola Pero wrote:
Well, I guess we really need to get GNUSTEP_BUILD_DIR working properly
for
all projects ...
another thing to do ;-)
Balaton has a patch to gnustep-make to get build-dir stuff working
properly (or at least better) among other things. I'm still
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 06:47:07PM +0200, Nicola Pero wrote:
> Anyway, if anyone has any comments before I do all this simplification,
> please let me know :-)
I'm very much for this change. However, why not go one step further and
have the -g standard? If you want non-debug versions you just do
I'm agree with what Andy is saying.
Later, GJC
--Gregory Casamento
- Original Message
From: Andrew Ruder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: gnustep-dev@gnu.org
Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2006 11:09:51 PM
Subject: Re: Removing all remaining distinction between shared, debug, profile
September 7, 2006 11:39:05 PM
Subject: Re: Removing all remaining distinction between shared, debug, profile
and static libs/executables
I'm agree with what Andy is saying.
Later, GJC
--Gregory Casamento
- Original Message
From: Andrew Ruder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: g
Hi,
I'm not sure if the following problem relates to this clean-up, but
after running a checkout, building and installing -make, I now get
Making all for library libgnustep-base...
Linking library libgnustep-base ...
gcc41: debug=: No such file or directory
gcc41: profile=: No such fi
Nicola Pero schrieb:
> Anyway, if anyone has any comments before I do all this simplification,
> please let me know :-)
Thank you very much!
Cheers,
David
___
Gnustep-dev mailing list
Gnustep-dev@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-
ect: Re: Removing all remaining distinction between shared, debug,
profile and static libs/executables
Hi,
I'm not sure if the following problem relates to this clean-up, but
after running a checkout, building and installing -make, I now get
Making all for library libgnustep-base...
Linki
Yes please! :-)
Or even better put it on the savannah bugs/patches ?
Thanks
> > Well, I guess we really need to get GNUSTEP_BUILD_DIR working properly
> > for all projects ... another thing to do ;-)
>
> Balaton has a patch to gnustep-make to get build-dir stuff working
> properly (or at least b
On 2006-09-08 12:39:11 +0200 Nicola Pero
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry about that ... I'll start to do a bit of simplification now and
make
sure I test building gnustep-base properly. :-)
No problem.
It's not just base, basically all .../Library/Makefile/Instance/*.make
files are 'involve
Please try again now ... which_lib is gone!! :-)
Works for me anyway.
Thanks
-Original Message-
From: "Chris Vetter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2006 1:10 pm
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: gnustep-dev@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Removing all remaining distinctio
On 2006-09-08 13:19:54 +0200 Nicola Pero
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please try again now ... which_lib is gone!! :-)
Works for me anyway.
Confirmed. Works again.
Cool,
--
Chris
___
Gnustep-dev mailing list
Gnustep-dev@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/
Sorry for the late reply, I was on vacation for the past couple weeks...
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 18:47:07 +0200 (CEST), "Nicola Pero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> Adam has removed the '_d' library name suffix for debug libraries
> ... a very welcome change which will make everything simpler and less
>
19 matches
Mail list logo
