Jan Wieck wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> Tom Lane writes: > >> > >> > What Peter was advocating in that thread was that we enable -g by > >> > default *when building with gcc*. I have no problem with that, since > >> > there is (allegedly) no performance penalty for -g with gcc. However, > >> > the actual present behavior of our configure script is to default to -g > >> > for every compiler, and I think that that is a big mistake. On most > >> > non-gcc compilers, -g disables optimizations, which is way too high a > >> > price to pay for production use. > >> > >> You do realize that as of now, -g is the default for gcc? Was that the > >> intent? > > > > I was going to ask that myself. It seems strange to include -g by default --- > > we have --enable-debug, and that should control -g on all platforms. > > Could it be that there ought to be a difference between the defaults of > a devel CVS tree, a BETA tarball and a final "production" release?
I am afraid that adds too much confusion to the debug situation. We have a flag to do -g; let people use it if they want it. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
