RE: Gcc 4.0.2 RC1 checking not disabled?

[Gcc K6 testing account <caligula at sarijopen dot student dot utwente dot nl>]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Dave Korn wrote:

> ----Original Message----
> >From: Gcc K6 testing account
> >Sent: 14 September 2005 19:43
> 
> > Ave gcc people
> 
>   ¡Hola!
> 
> > Is "-DENABLE_CHECKING" supposed to happen in a RC/release?
> > Or has -DENABLE_CHECKING nothing to do with the configure
> > option --enable-checking?
> 
>   --enable-checking defaults to on these days, and has done for some time.
> It doesn't enable _all_ the checking options by default, just some of the
> most useful ones.
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html
> ----------------------------------------------------
> -enable-checking
> --enable-checking=list
>     When you specify this option, the compiler is built to perform internal
> consistency checks of the requested complexity. This does not change the
> generated code, but adds error checking within the compiler. This will slow
> down the compiler and may only work properly if you are building the
> compiler with GCC. This is `yes' by default when building from CVS or
> snapshots, but `release' for releases. The categories of checks available
> are `yes' (most common checks `assert,misc,tree,gc,rtlflag,runtime'), `no'
> (no checks at all), `all' (all but `valgrind'), `release' (cheapest checks
> `assert,runtime') or `none' (same as `no'). Individual checks can be enabled
> with these flags `assert', `fold', `gc', `gcac' `misc', `rtl', `rtlflag',
> `runtime', `tree', and `valgrind'.
> ----------------------------------------------------
> 
> which matches up nicely with the "-DENABLE_CHECKING
> -DENABLE_ASSERT_CHECKING" that you are seeing ('release' category).
> 
>     cheers,
>       DaveK


AHA!!!

I always assumed (without reading the docs!) that the default was 
--disable-checking in a release/RC tarball and --enable-checking in CVS. 

Sometimes reading the Fine Manual does help indeed :)

Thanx Mu