This is the mail archive of the
gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
-fno-unwind-tables -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables versus debugging
- From: waltdnes at waltdnes dot org
- To: GCC help list <gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 13:25:46 -0400
- Subject: -fno-unwind-tables -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables versus debugging
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
A few years ago on the Busybox list I stumbled over...
http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2012-September/078326.html
http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2012-September/078331.html
...where "-fno-unwind-tables -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables" CFLAGS
were shown to reduce the filesize of builds. The Busybox people are
building for constrained environments, so this is very important to
them. I include those flags in my Gentoo linux config.
I'm manually building and running the beta for the next version of
Pale Moon (linux). A build without the flags produces a 43,262,332 byte
tarball. With the flags, it's 40,528,597 bytes; approximately 2.7
megabytes smaller. I've suggested to the developers that they use these
flags when building Pale Moon, but they have concerns about impacts on
debugging.
So my question is whether or not the flags
"-fno-unwind-tables -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables" make debugging
harder. Has anything changed in that area in the past 4 years?
--
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>