"Simon Marlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Re the current and recurring conflicts between profiling and > > non-profiling code; how hard would it be to name GHC's output files > > differently when compiling with -prof? > > The proposal, therefore, is to extend the meaning of '-prof' to mean > '-prof -osuf p_o -hisuf p_hi' or similar.
It might be worth pointing out that nhc98 already does something like this, and we find that it is definitely a big win. We settled on .p.o for heap profiling and .z.o for time profiling (also .T.o for tracing, but that may disappear shortly with the advent of portable Hat). > To summarise the advantages/disadvantages: > - win: you could store profiled and normal objects in the same > directory. Very handy, because it means you can switch between normal and profiled versions of a project without having to do a complete rebuild every time. > - win: you'd be less likely to mix up profiled and normal objects. Mixing up object files was an absolute pain in the backside, and happened far too frequently, until we adopted separate suffixes. > - lose: Makefile writing gets harder. Extra suffix rules have to > be added to deal with the new suffixes, and 'make depend' has > to add dependency rules for the extra suffixes (ghc -M has some > support for doing this). If you're using ghc --make this doesn't > affect you. Worth noting also that `hmake' currently understands that -p (for nhc98) means to look for the .p.o suffix etc. It would be very straightforward to extend the mechanism to do the same or similar for ghc. Regards, Malcolm _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users