This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: egcs build report


On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, Joe Buck wrote:
> But those users will install binary distributions, which generally will
> be built without -g.

I seriously doubt this. Currently the documentation is very weak in
this area:

markab[189]:/sw/swtest/egcs/.../wwwdocs/htdocs/install% grep FLAG *
markab[190]:/sw/swtest/egcs/.../wwwdocs/htdocs/install% 

> 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. 

As Mark Mitchell has mentioned before, disk space _is_ a problem. Not
everyone installing egcs is administrator and has full access, we also
should think about ``plain'' users interested in egcs.

> 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".  

I guess that's a good idea. Anyone willing to write that piece of
documentation?

(After having caused the longest thread in the history of egcs just
recently, I'm somewhat hesitant... :-\ )

> 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). 

What I would like to see -- preferrably by default -- is that the
executables are built without debugging information, while the libraries
are made with -g.

Is there any problem with this approach resp. making it the default?

Gerald
-- 
Gerald Pfeifer (Jerry)      Vienna University of Technology
pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at   http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]