Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I think I have a compromise for --enable-debug: How about if > > --enable-debug removes optimization, adds -g (or -g3 for macro debugging > > symbols in gcc), and maybe even enables casserts. > > This strikes me as a completely arbitrary set of changes in > long-established behavior. People who want to turn off optimization > already know how to do it, and people who want asserts already know
How do you do it? CFLAGS="" configure? > how to do that. Eliminating the functional difference between these > --enable options isn't a step forward. I was looking for something that would be a middle ground, and I thought a super-debug binary might to it. I do think we should consider -g3 for gcc. I didn't know it existed, and it does seem nice. -- 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 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
