On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 05:28:38PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote: >On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 02:47:20PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 02:45:44PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote: >>>On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 02:02:33PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>>> >>>> tar xjf cygwin-1.5.12-1-src.tar.bz2 >>>> cd cygwin-1.5.12-1 >>>> mkdir build >>>> cd build >>>> (../configure; make) >& make.out >>>> >>>>It does make sense to check CVS or a snapshot to see if your problem is >>>>fixed before you go to any effort trying to debug a problem, however. >>> >>>Great. Just put the above in the FAQ, plus some words about needing an >>>unstripped dll. >> >>Information about building the DLL is already in the FAQ. > >If you refer to http://cygwin.com/faq/faq0.html#SEC102 it has the >apparently obsolete information about needing a separate w32api and it >recommends to use cvs.
You included the section where I said it was probably a good idea to use CVS or a snapshot. So, the FAQ is accurate there. You're right that the rest of it should be updated. However, if the fact that the cygwin FAQ entry is mildly inaccurate was a true stumbling block for people who wanted to debug the DLL, then I think we would have seen a complaint about it by now. I think it's pretty clear that the people who are clamoring for this don't really know what they want and assume that a dll with debugging symbols will either enable them to debug the dll without going through the awful rigors of building or they think they would have a better opportunity of having cygwin tech support look at their back traces. Neither is precisely true. However, I have already said that it is on my todo list to try to provide a debuginfo package for cygwin. It will show up in some future release. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/