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.
We've wondered about this from time to time, but it's not clear to me that it's an all-round good idea. So if anyone else has any opinions please chime in - if the general concensus is to make this change then we'll do it. The proposal, therefore, is to extend the meaning of '-prof' to mean '-prof -osuf p_o -hisuf p_hi' or similar. To summarise the advantages/disadvantages: - win: you could store profiled and normal objects in the same directory. - win: you'd be less likely to mix up profiled and normal objects. - 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. Cheers, Simon