> > 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 find -lc" --- maybe I'd decipher libc, but "-"...).
>
> The compiler can also generate code for e.g. FreeBSD,Darwin and Li
>>> 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
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
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
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
23 matches
Mail list logo
