Bug#157131: Bug#113525: Bug#157131: [PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

On 21 Aug 2002 17:30:30 -0400, Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ifeq (,$(findstring nostrip,$(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS))) > INSTALL_PROGRAM += -s > endif I saw a library which did install -s *.a (already fixed). -- Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian developer PGP key (key ID F464A695)

Bug#157131: Bug#113525: Bug#157131: [PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

[ Sorry if this comes through twice, my Postfix/TLS certificate expired, and mail stopped working for a bit ] Here's an updated patch which should address the concerns raised. --- debian-policy-3.5.6.1/policy.sgml 2002-03-14 13:17:48.0 -0500 +++ debian-policy-3.5.6.1.hacked/policy.sgml

Bug#157131: PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

Previously Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > As for me personally, I have made peace with -O2 code. stepi is your friend > ;) Fwiw, debugging C++ code using STL with -O2 is almost impossible. Wichert. -- _ /[EMAIL PROTECTED] T

Re: Bug#157131: Bug#113525: Bug#157131: [PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Oohara Yuuma) writes: > On 18 Aug 2002 20:18:43 -0400, > Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > + Although binaries in the build tree should be compiled with > > + debugging information by default, > How can I do it without wasting autobuilder's CPU time? Don't w

Bug#157131: Bug#113525: Bug#157131: [PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 02:00:41PM +0900, Oohara Yuuma wrote: > On 18 Aug 2002 20:18:43 -0400, > Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > + Although binaries in the build tree should be compiled with > > + debugging information by default, > How can I do it without wasting autobuilder's

Bug#157131: Bug#113525: Bug#157131: [PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

On 18 Aug 2002 20:18:43 -0400, Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > + Although binaries in the build tree should be compiled with > + debugging information by default, How can I do it without wasting autobuilder's CPU time? -- Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian developer PG

Bug#157131: Bug#113525: Bug#157131: [PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

On Mon, 2002-08-19 at 20:35, Richard Braakman wrote: > Note that many packages don't currently do this. I often had to do > horrible things to Makefiles to get a binary with debugging symbols. > I speak in past tense because I usually don't bother to do this anymore. > So listen up, maintainers:

Bug#157131: PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You might want to add a warning that this needs to be tested. Some > packages, like glibc or the Hurd, can not be built without optimization > (for example because of inline functions not being inlined). It should be pointed out that this fact repre

Bug#157131: Bug#113525: Bug#157131: [PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 08:18:43PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > + Although binaries in the build tree should be compiled with > + debugging information by default, Note that many packages don't currently do this. I often had to do horrible things to Makefiles to get a binary with de

Bug#157131: Bug#113525: Bug#157131: [PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

On Mon, 2002-08-19 at 18:07, Bdale Garbee wrote: > I note a typo in the first line of your change: > > + By default, when a package is being built, it any binaries > > Want to lose the word 'it' in that line? Yep, good catch. Thanks.

Bug#157131: Bug#113525: Bug#157131: [PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin Walters) writes: > Any seconds? I note a typo in the first line of your change: + By default, when a package is being built, it any binaries Want to lose the word 'it' in that line? Other than that, I second this proposal. Bdale

Bug#157131: Bug#113525: Bug#157131: [PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Any seconds? seconded. - -- James -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.6 iEYEARECAAYFAj1hVZYACgkQgD/uEic

Re: Bug#157131: [PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Steve Kowalik wrote: > At 10:59 pm, Monday, August 19 2002, Colin Walters mumbled: > > I kind of suspected so, but not having access to authoritative data I > > didn't want to try to change two things at once. Well, here's an > > updated patch which combines both then. I als

Bug#157131: PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 13:05:18 +0200, Ivo Timmermans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Julian Gilbey wrote: > > Good point. May in some cases be worth adding, though, if upstream > > makefiles add -O2 automatically. > Same goes for -fno-omit-frame-pointer I heard when I was in the NM queue that -fomit-fr

Bug#157131: [PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

At 10:59 pm, Monday, August 19 2002, Colin Walters mumbled: > I kind of suspected so, but not having access to authoritative data I > didn't want to try to change two things at once. Well, here's an > updated patch which combines both then. I also removed some old cruft > about a.out and -N. > >

Re: Bug#157131: PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 01:14:31PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 06:48:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > (BTW, someone's mailer is a complete piece of crap. What the F is up > > with mangling the subject line like that?) > The BTS doesn't like the [ at the start of the

Bug#157131: PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 06:48:24PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > (BTW, someone's mailer is a complete piece of crap. What the F is up > with mangling the subject line like that?) The BTS doesn't like the [ at the start of the Subject line, for some reason. -- 2. That which causes joy or

Bug#157131: PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

Julian Gilbey wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 09:19:02AM +0900, Oohara Yuuma wrote: > > -O0 is the default of gcc. Why do I have to add it explicitly? > > I don't want a bug filed just because -O0 is missing. > > Good point. May in some cases be worth adding, though, if upstream > makefiles add

Bug#157131: PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 09:19:02AM +0900, Oohara Yuuma wrote: > On 18 Aug 2002 18:16:43 -0400, > Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > + noopt > > + > > + > > + The presence of this string means that the package > > + should be complied with the minu

Bug#157131: PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

On Sun, 2002-08-18 at 20:19, Oohara Yuuma wrote: > -O0 is the default of gcc. Why do I have to add it explicitly? Well, you don't strictly speaking have to do anything yet; DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS is a recommendation of policy, not a requirement. Anyways, I just mentioned adding -O0 just for clarity'

Bug#157131: PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

On 18 Aug 2002 18:16:43 -0400, Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > + noopt > + > + > + The presence of this string means that the package > + should be complied with the minumum possible amount of > + optimization. For C progra

Bug#157131: Bug#113525: Bug#157131: [PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

severity 113525 wishlist merge 157131 113525 retitle 157131 [PROPOSAL] Rework DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS section thanks On Sun, 2002-08-18 at 18:52, James Troup wrote: > I can > guarantee you that the additional time incurred by using '-g' is so > insignificant it's insulting to have to even discuss it.

Processed: Re: Bug#157131: Bug#113525: Bug#157131: [PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug" Merged 113525 157131. > retitle 157131 [PROPOSAL] Rework DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS section Bug#157131: [PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug" Changed Bug title. > tha

Bug#157131: PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 11:52:54PM +0100, James Troup wrote: > Yes, but it's complete and utter crap; it was then and still is now. > Ben ran a buildd on vore which is one of the faster buildds, but I've > run both vore and some of our slower (arm, m68k) buildds and I can > guarantee you that the a

Bug#157131: Bug#113525: Bug#157131: [PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, 2002-08-18 at 15:45, Ian Jackson wrote: > > Please see also my comments in #113525. > > I personally have no strong opinion on this, really. Whoever wrote > the Rationale: part of this section obviously disagrees with you, > though. Yes, but it

Bug#157131: Bug#113525: Bug#157131: [PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 06:18:45PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > On Sun, 2002-08-18 at 15:45, Ian Jackson wrote: > > Please see also my comments in #113525. > > I personally have no strong opinion on this, really. Whoever wrote the > Rationale: part of this section obviously disagrees with you, t

Bug#157131: PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

On Sun, 2002-08-18 at 05:46, Richard Braakman wrote: > For that matter, there are also Heisenbugs to consider: some bugs only > appear in the optimized version, not the un-optimized. Compiling the > debugging version with different optimization flags would make tracking > down these bugs needless

Bug#157131: Bug#113525: Bug#157131: [PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

On Sun, 2002-08-18 at 15:45, Ian Jackson wrote: > Please see also my comments in #113525. I personally have no strong opinion on this, really. Whoever wrote the Rationale: part of this section obviously disagrees with you, though. Maybe machines are fast enough today in general that it isn't as

Bug#113525: Bug#157131: [PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

Please see also my comments in #113525. Ian.

Bug#157131: PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

On Sun, 18 Aug 2002, Richard Braakman wrote: > This would lose a feature that I find valuable: usually, recompiling > a package with the debug option will generate a binary whose symbols > are compatible with the "normal" packaged binary. I have used this > several times to chase down hard-to-fin

Bug#157131: PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

This would lose a feature that I find valuable: usually, recompiling a package with the debug option will generate a binary whose symbols are compatible with the "normal" packaged binary. I have used this several times to chase down hard-to-find library compatibility bugs, or to interpret core-fi

Bug#157131: PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

[ No need to CC me, btw, despite the evil the BTS does to Reply-To ] On Sat, 2002-08-17 at 23:14, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > You might want to add a warning that this needs to be tested. Some > packages, like glibc or the Hurd, can not be built without optimization > (for example because of inlin

Bug#157131: PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, Colin Walters wrote: > The attached patch should mostly speak for itself. I think it's great > that a lot of packages support DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=debug now, but if the > program is compiled with optimization, it's very difficult to debug. > --- debian-policy-3.5.6.1/policy.sgm

Bug#157131: PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 10:41:11PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Severity: wishlist > > The attached patch should mostly speak for itself. I think it's great > that a lot of packages support DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=debug now, but if the > program is compiled with optimization,

Bug#157131: [PROPOSAL] Suggest to minimize optimization when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS contains "debug"

Package: debian-policy Severity: wishlist The attached patch should mostly speak for itself. I think it's great that a lot of packages support DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=debug now, but if the program is compiled with optimization, it's very difficult to debug. Another alternative is to make a whole diffe