This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: When to emit C++ debug info?
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 09:03:13PM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> 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