This is the mail archive of the 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: When to emit C++ debug info?

On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 09:03:13PM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz <> writes:
> | > We can build on the cfront virtual function table heuristic: only emit
> | > debug information for a class in the unit that implements the virtual
> | > function table.  "But someone might give me a library with no debug
> | > information".  Fine, we can have a flag that causes full debug info
> | > to be emitted to cover that case, but it should not be the default.
> | 
> | I believe the summary of my arguments at this point is, the use of C++
> | libraries without debug info is a great deal more common than GCC
> | developers believe 
> Well, I disagree with point.  It has been a failing point for some
> libraries like V3 for a long time.  Other implementers (with larger
> user base community) have managed to supply debugged libraries years
> before us.  And thanks to the recent work on ddebug mode by Benjamin,
> Doug et al. we're hopefully going to  catch up.  That we've only
> "discovered" debugged libraries recently is probably a sign of how
> "ghettorized" we've gotten :-/

Debug mode has nothing to do with this problem; we could supply a
libstdc++ with debug mode just as well beforehand, so I'm not sure what
you mean.

And my point is that people use libraries besides the standard library
- QT for instance.  GLU.  All of the assorted libraries that come with
QT.  Developer interfaces for database products like Oracle.

Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

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