This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: egcs build report
- To: pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at (Gerald Pfeifer)
- Subject: Re: egcs build report
- From: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jun 98 18:55:07 PDT
- Cc: egcs at cygnus dot com, law at cygnus dot com, tomh at taz dot ccs dot fau dot edu
> > Yes, we want -g included in the flags by default.
>
> Why?
>
> IMHO, this makes egcs more ``expensive'' in terms of disk space and
> build time, and I'd say that 99% of all _users_ will never use it.
But those users will install binary distributions, which generally will
be built without -g.
> Could it make sense not to include -g for releases?
This has not traditionally done to help convey the sense that free
software/open source is not simply a freebie, it is an effort that people
can contribute to.
GNUware has always been done this way. Considering that disk prices are
now about 1/100th of what they were when this policy began, I don't think
it's a problem.
A compromise might be to include in the installation instructions "If
you're really short on disk space and not competent to help us debug,
do xyz". Proper instruction should be given! As g++ FAQ maintainer,
I don't want to suddenly get lots of mail from folks who can't debug
their code (because someone installed a libstdc++ with no debug symbols).