>>> I hope you can see the difference between a linker, which is needed no
>>> matte how you want to use the compiler, and a tool like Valgrind or
>>> gprof.
>
> VS> With this difference, compiling -gv succeeds, even if Valgrind is not
> VS> installed. Compiling -pg fails, if gprof/cygwin is not
>> These are pretty big when taken together.
>
>> ... ... An optional downloadable package
>> would probably make more sense though.
>
> Yes. Hint, link and package/link to smallest possible set of libraries
> would be better. I am not experienced with many things, so this was pretty
> confusing ("
>> I hope you can see the difference between a linker, which is needed no
>> matte how you want to use the compiler, and a tool like Valgrind or gprof.
VS> With this difference, compiling -gv succeeds, even if Valgrind is not
VS> installed. Compiling -pg fails, if gprof/cygwin is not installed.
Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 25 apr 2006, at 19:56, Пётр Косаревский wrote:
But the result is useless without Valgrind (no more useful than a
regularly compiled binary at least), just like compiling with -gd is
Just as compiler without a linker.
I hope you can see the difference between a linke
On 25 apr 2006, at 19:56, Пётр Косаревский wrote:
But the result is useless without Valgrind (no more useful than a
regularly compiled binary at least), just like compiling with -gd is
Just as compiler without a linker.
I hope you can see the difference between a linker, which is needed
n
> But the result is useless without Valgrind (no more useful than a
> regularly compiled binary at least), just like compiling with -gd is
> Jonas
Just as compiler without a linker.
What about user friendly filelist I mentioned?
(Now that I know why and how cygwin is needed, I'll install it
On 25 apr 2006, at 17:18, Пётр Косаревский wrote:
These are pretty big when taken together.
... ... An optional downloadable package
would probably make more sense though.
Yes. Hint, link and package/link to smallest possible set of
libraries would be better. I am not experienced with ma
> for libgdb.a needed for our IDE as well). OTOH, if we ship gprof.exe, we
> should probably ship the needed libraries and vice versa, it doesn't make
> too much sense as it is now...
By the way: I don't use IDE (it is not handy due to many issues that are not
bugs), but when I tried, it complete
đŁÔŇ ëĎÓÁŇĹ×ÓËÉĘ wrote:
> 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 b
> These are pretty big when taken together.
> ... ... An optional downloadable package
> would probably make more sense though.
Yes. Hint, link and package/link to smallest possible set of libraries would be
better. I am not experienced with many things, so this was pretty confusing
("can't f
On 25 apr 2006, at 16:37, Пётр Косаревский wrote:
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
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
Hi,
I spent time yesterday trying to look up DOS commands on the FPC website and
was unable to reference DosExitCode, Exec and some others I knew should have
been there on the live pdf files.
They're popping up in the PDF by search with a numeric hyperlink, but the
hyperlinks are not referencing
đŁÔŇ ëĎÓÁŇĹ×ÓËÉĘ wrote:
.
.
> as,ld question: the answer is in bug report 4462. However, searching bugs
> or even browsing them is not a good option.
No - first of all, the answer is on the top of the snapshot download page
(http://www.freepascal.org/develop.html): "Note: There is no support for
đŁÔŇ ëĎÓÁŇĹ×ÓËÉĘ wrote:
>> đŁÔŇ ëĎÓÁŇĹ×ÓËÉĘ wrote:
.
.
>> 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:)
The error
> Jonas
Thank you, it was very clear (except bug 4929, and I can kinda answer that
question myself: probably if -CpPENTIUM4 is specified, optimizations are
automatically for Pentium4).
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://
> > >> Last time I used gprof on win32, it worked fine?
> > > 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? Be
On 25 apr 2006, at 14:13, Пётр Косаревский wrote:
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:)
-lc means "link t
> 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).
> >>
đŁÔŇ ëĎÓÁŇĹ×ÓËÉĘ wrote:
> Sorry, eight questions ahead (first two are 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) t
On 4/25/06, Jonas Maebe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> The quoted code above adds "-FE." to the compiler command line. For
> some reason this doesn't seem to work in your Makefile, which results
> in the compiled units being put in the directory where their source
> is located. Consequently, they
On 25 apr 2006, at 11:21, Adrian Maier wrote:
Please try
make clean all OPT="-vtu"
That should make it clear why it doesn't want to use the new unixtype
(or why it wants to recompile it).
It is searching for UNIXTYPE only in rtl/inc , while in fact unixtype
is in rtl/unix :
http://www.new
Am Dienstag, den 25.04.2006, 09:03 +0200 schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
>
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Marc Santhoff wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > is there any rule of thumb how enabling RTTI will influence the speed
> > and memory usage?
>
> There is no influence on speed.
>
> There is no influence on memo
On 4/25/06, Jonas Maebe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 25 apr 2006, at 10:17, Adrian Maier wrote:
>
> >> That is not good. Can you post the output of a "make clean all"?
> >> (without this -Fu/data/fpc/2.0.0/release_2_0_0/rtl/unix added to your
> >> config file)
> >
> > Sure:
> > http://www.news
On 25 apr 2006, at 10:17, Adrian Maier wrote:
That is not good. Can you post the output of a "make clean all"?
(without this -Fu/data/fpc/2.0.0/release_2_0_0/rtl/unix added to your
config file)
Sure:
http://www.newsoftcontrol.ro/~am/gmake_clean_all.txt
Please try
make clean all OPT="-vtu"
Sorry, eight questions ahead (first two are important to me).
-Original Message-
From: Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Пётр Косаревский <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,FPC-Pascal users discussions
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 09:57:55 +0200
Subject: Re: [fpc-pascal] fpc and intel vtune
> > Remark
On 4/25/06, Jonas Maebe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > $ gmake --version
> > GNU Make 3.80
> >
> > One more thing:when compiling rtl/inc/ctypes.pp , it was unable to
> > find the unit UNIXTYPE. And i had to add to fpc.conf:
> > -Fu/data/fpc/2.0.0/release_2_0_0/rtl/unix
> > So, it seems to me t
On 23 apr 2006, at 19:44, Adrian Maier wrote:
Yes. the compiler is 1.0.10
Does "make info" also show this?
Yes, it does. I've included the full output of 'gmake info' at the
end of the email.
Why do you suspect that the compiler version is not well detected?
(the only compiler i have is 1.
Пётр Косаревский wrote:
> My question: does anyone know, whether vtune can be tuned to work with FPC
> (at list on function names level) or not?
Afaik not because vtune for windows supports no open debugging information
format on windows.
>
> Remark: of course I don't ask here for vtune support
Now: I have downloaded evaluation version of intel VTune 8.0 and tried to
debug/optimize an application with it. It does not recognize symbols in FPC
module (function names etc., source is not supported too). Still, it does work
with Delphi, for example.
History: Long ago someone complained abo
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Marc Santhoff wrote:
Hi,
is there any rule of thumb how enabling RTTI will influence the speed
and memory usage?
There is no influence on speed.
There is no influence on memory usage other than that the executable is
larger. The heap memory usage does not grow due to R
31 matches
Mail list logo
