On 11/20/2010 1:05 PM, MK wrote:
I do not
think the exception (a need for debugging) should make the rule
(general use, production grade software). I'd bet 99%+ of the time
those compiled in debugging symbols never even get used a single time.
The black box on an airplane doesn't get much
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 10:07:31 +0900
Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org wrote:
MK halfcountp...@intergate.com writes:
If you say so, then I guess I am imagining things ;) I have never
given the issue much thought until now, I suppose I need to do a bit
more research on the issue.
Indeed, it's
[ adding bug-standards; this thread is from
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake/2010-11/msg00114.html ]
* MK wrote on Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 04:47:48PM CET:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 10:07:31 +0900 Miles Bader wrote:
Indeed, it's often a good idea to do the research _before_ posting
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:44:10 +0100
Ralf Wildenhues ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de wrote:
Oh well. This thread has been so noisy and unproductive, maybe we
should seize the opportunity to take a bit of good away from it.
Karl, what do you think about this rewording (against the gnulib copy
of
The reason why users are helpless without debugging symbols is if a
program crashes, all they can look at are the machine registers at the
state of the crash. This is completely useless for figuring out why
the program crashed, or getting help from another hacker to figure out
why it crashed.
Karl, what do you think about this rewording
The second hunk adds real information, so I'll go ahead and install that.
The first hunk, though, I just can't agree with, and I feel pretty sure
that rms would not approve of such a change either. Helpless is a
good description of people faced
I have a FOSS project distributed by debian, and for quite I've been
using this in the Makefile.am under install-data-am:
-strip --strip-all $(bindir)/executable
Since I could not find a way to prevent the project being built -g, and
there is no need for this.
However, I have a new release and
Hello,
* MK wrote on Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 08:10:25PM CET:
Since I could not find a way to prevent the project being built -g, and
there is no need for this.
./configure CFLAGS=-O2
See 'info Autoconf C Compiler'. For C++ use CXXFLAGS etc.
Cheers,
Ralf
On 20/11/10 06:10, MK wrote:
I have a FOSS project distributed by debian, and for quite I've been
using this in the Makefile.am under install-data-am:
-strip --strip-all $(bindir)/executable
Since I could not find a way to prevent the project being built -g, and
there is no need for this.
Ah, it's because of GNU make:
By default, the Make rules should compile and link with -g, so that
executable programs have debugging symbols. Users who don't mind being
helpless can strip the executables later if they wish.
Nice, flexible software it ain't.
This is an assbackward policy. The
Op 20 nov 2010, om 16:36 heeft MK het volgende geschreven:
Maybe there is a way to do this via autoconf?
Yes, you can place:
CFLAGS=
at the beginning of your configure.ac, after AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE but before
AC_PROG_CC.
This will prevent your configure from allowing user-specified CFLAGS
* Raphael 'kena' Poss wrote on Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 04:47:00PM CET:
Op 20 nov 2010, om 16:36 heeft MK het volgende geschreven:
Maybe there is a way to do this via autoconf?
Yes, you can place:
CFLAGS=
at the beginning of your configure.ac, after AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE but before
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 10:36:34 -0500
MK halfcountp...@intergate.com wrote:
If and when you do need debugging symbols, it should be easy to opt
*for* them. Instead, I am left with the choice of leaving them in by
default, or having to use strip, making it impossible to add them.
Sorry if that
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 10:36:34AM -0500, MK wrote:
Ah, it's because of GNU make:
By default, the Make rules should compile and link with -g, so that
executable programs have debugging symbols. Users who don't mind being
helpless can strip the executables later if they wish.
Nice,
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 12:13:38 -0500
Paul Smith psm...@gnu.org wrote:
This chapter has no relationship to any default BUILT INTO or REQUIRED
by GNU make; in fact there IS NO default value for CFLAGS built into
GNU make:
Hmm, well it seems to via autotools. But since this is not
inescapable
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 17:31:32 +
Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net wrote:
What actual problems are the debugging symbols causing you?
What is the wrong with the default?
I mention this in my other email (about gvim, and that a -g exe will
load noticeably slower than one without debug symbols).
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010, MK wrote:
Justifications WRT to distro packaging issues, however, seem much more
reasonable. However, my conundrum is that I do not think this is a good
default for people who build from source: years ago, when I was a new
linux user and used to build stuff from source a
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010, MK wrote:
I mention this in my other email (about gvim, and that a -g exe will
load noticeably slower than one without debug symbols). I do not
think the exception (a need for debugging) should make the rule
(general use, production grade software). I'd bet 99%+ of the
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 14:17:14 -0600 (CST)
Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote:
The vast majority of Linux users install from binary packages, or via
source-based install systems which assure that appropriate build
options are applied. Very few build by hand and install under
* MK wrote on Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 09:55:51PM CET:
Maybe so, and maybe not. But regardless: it makes more sense to have
the default *appropriate for general use*, rather for a distro packager
(who's work I do appreciate!). Otherwise, I have to put a note in the
INSTALL: To accommodate the
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 14:21:27 -0600 (CST)
Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote:
Under a normal operating system (i.e. perhaps not Plan 9, I am not
sure) the debug symbols are separate from the executable text so that
the OS will never read the debug symbol area while it is
MK halfcountp...@intergate.com writes:
Ah, it's because of GNU make:
No it's not.
By default, the Make rules should compile and link with -g, so that
executable programs have debugging symbols. Users who don't mind being
helpless can strip the executables later if they wish.
Nice,
MK halfcountp...@intergate.com writes:
If you say so, then I guess I am imagining things ;) I have never
given the issue much thought until now, I suppose I need to do a bit
more research on the issue.
Indeed, it's often a good idea to do the research _before_ posting
flames and rants...
23 matches
Mail list logo
