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]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Standard scheme for maintainer-only debugging code?

From: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>
To: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
Cc: jbuck at synopsys dot com, jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk, neroden at twcny dot rr dot com,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:22:38 +0200
Subject: Re: Standard scheme for maintainer-only debugging code?
References: <20030610195038.GA19115@doctormoo><Pine.LNX.4.53.0306102307410.20903@kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk><20030610152100.B26878@synopsys.com><200306102303.h5AN3oP31438@greed.delorie.com>

DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> writes:

|> > Of course, there's a way to achieve both: debug_XYZ could be defined to
|> > any of 0, 1, or flag_debug_XYZ, and there could be a single #ifdef to
|> > make all of the flags variable.
|> 
|> Perhaps enabled with --enable-maintainer-mode?

IMHO this should not be overloaded.  Debugging and maintaining are
different concepts.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux AG, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Standard scheme for maintainer-only debugging code?
  - From: Richard Earnshaw

References:
- Re: Standard scheme for maintainer-only debugging code?
  - From: Nathanael Nerode
- Re: Standard scheme for maintainer-only debugging code?
  - From: Joseph S. Myers
- Re: Standard scheme for maintainer-only debugging code?
  - From: Joe Buck
- Re: Standard scheme for maintainer-only debugging code?
  - From: DJ Delorie

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