I just tested gcc 2.95.3 on BSD/OS i386 and didn't see any change when using -g3 vs -g in the size of the binaries.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Neil Conway wrote: > On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 21:29, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > configure --enable-debug will use -g for the compile, and with > > optimization. > > I'm just curious: would there be any benefit to using -g3 when > --enable-debug is specified and -g3 is supported by gcc? From the gcc > man page: > > -glevel > > [...] > > Request debugging information and also use level to specify how > much information. The default level is 2. > > Level 1 produces minimal information, enough for making backtraces > in parts of the program that you don't plan to debug. This > includes descriptions of functions and external variables, but no > information about local variables and no line numbers. > > Level 3 includes extra information, such as all the macro defini- > tions present in the program. Some debuggers support macro expan- > sion when you use -g3. > > Note that in order to avoid confusion between DWARF1 debug level 2, > and DWARF2, neither -gdwarf nor -gdwarf-2 accept a concatenated > debug level. Instead use an additional -glevel option to change > the debug level for DWARF1 or DWARF2. > > -Neil > > -- 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 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
