Hal Daume III
Fri, 10 May 2002 07:34:49 -0700 (PDT)
Actually, could you generalize this a bit (if you're considering it) and
allow global replacement of ".o" instead? Something like --o-postfix=o
would be the default and Ketil could get what he wants by --o-postfix=p.o
The reason I suggest this is because I often maintain both Sparc Solaris
and x86 Linux builds of my programs and basically have to keep two
separate directory structures to house them. With this, I could simply
point my solaris ghc to do --o-postfix=s.o and my linux ghc to do
--o-postfix=l.o or something.
Hal Daume III
"Computer science is no more about computers | email@example.com
than astronomy is about telescopes." -Dijkstra | www.isi.edu/~hdaume
On 10 May 2002, Ketil Z. Malde wrote:
> 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?
> I.e. without, you get the normal foo.hs -> foo.o result, but with
> -prof you could get e.g. foo.po or foo.p.o instead? (And of course,
> linking these instead when making the executable)
> I can probably hack this in a makefile, but it'd be nice to be able to
> just ghc --make as well.
> If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
> Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list