This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: egcs build report
- To: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>
- Subject: Re: egcs build report
- From: Tom Holroyd <tomh at taz dot ccs dot fau dot edu>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 10:19:44 +0900 (JST)
- cc: egcs at cygnus dot com, Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>
On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
>> 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.
It's not just an HO. Removing -g saves 50 megabytes (as I recall).
The build is also faster (sorry I don't remember the numbers by now, but
just writing 50 megs takes a while).
I'm quite happy with egcs. 1.0.3 compiles the kernel just fine on Alpha,
and I haven't had any of those pesky fatal signal errors gcc used to give
me. I'm also running it out of /usr/local, and the stock gcc is still in
/usr, and they coexist nicely (though I never use gcc).
>Could it make sense not to include -g for releases?
Yes it could. Or make it simpler to remove at configure time. --enable-g
or something (disabled by default). Egcs is fairly stable at this point.
If it were dumping core I'd tell you, don't worry. :-)
Dr. Tom Holroyd
Behavior Control Lab, Human Informatics Dept. The basis of
National Institute of Bioscience and Human-Technology stability is
1-1 Higashi, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki 305, Japan instability.
The 9th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."