Bruce Momjian wrote:
Well, we don't want to use debug for non-gcc (no optimization) so do we
do -g for gcc, and then --enable-debug does nothing. Seems people can
decide for themselves.
But doesn't --enable-debug turn off optimization?
It's really a question of what the default behavior
Bruce Momjian wrote:
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
pgman wrote:
Jan Wieck wrote:
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
Bruce Momjian wrote:
pgman wrote:
Jan Wieck wrote:
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
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Jan Wieck wrote:
In fact, even though I was debugging the backend regularly, I removed -g
and added it only when I wanted to debug.
It did somethimes in the past proove to be good luck to have symbols in
a core file accidentially. If you want to find them in an arbitrary
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
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
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.
Kevin Brown wrote:
You do realize that as of now, -g is the default for gcc?
It is?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/tmp$ gcc -c foo.c
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/tmp$ ls -l foo.o
-rw-r--r--1 kevinkevin 876 Oct 26 18:52 foo.o
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/tmp$ gcc -g -c foo.c
[EMAIL
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, I thought Peter advocated adding -g a few releases back.
I don't recall any such vote.
The vote was whether -g should be used for a default compile.
Here is the thread discussing the -g
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
uh, since you asked. I think the logic is that, at least with gcc, -g
is never harmful since you can compile with -O and -g and then strip
later if necessary.
Yeah, but ...
Does it still default to -g with compilers that
cannot do -O and -g together?
Tom Lane wrote:
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
uh, since you asked. I think the logic is that, at least with gcc, -g
is never harmful since you can compile with -O and -g and then strip
later if necessary.
Yeah, but ...
Does it still default to -g with compilers that
cannot
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, I thought Peter advocated adding -g a few releases back. I didn't
agree, but I lost the vote, so I thought it was done. Were we
supresssing -g in older releases? Peter?
I don't recall any such vote. Had we done that, we'd have removed
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, I thought Peter advocated adding -g a few releases back. I didn't
agree, but I lost the vote, so I thought it was done. Were we
supresssing -g in older releases? Peter?
I don't recall any such vote. Had we done that, we'd
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The vote was whether -g should be used for a default compile. Of course
--enable-debug would continue using -g. Maybe we kept --enable-debug
for backward compatibility or to force -g if you modified CFLAGS?
I can't see why we would have kept
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The vote was whether -g should be used for a default compile. Of course
--enable-debug would continue using -g. Maybe we kept --enable-debug
for backward compatibility or to force -g if you modified CFLAGS?
I can't see why we
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, I thought Peter advocated adding -g a few releases back. I didn't
agree, but I lost the vote, so I thought it was done. Were we
supresssing -g in older releases? Peter?
I don't recall any such
While fooling with adding -fno-strict-aliasing to configure, I realized
that there are still some oddities about its selection of CFLAGS. The
problems stem from the fact that autoconf will always select a default
value of CFLAGS that includes -g, if the compiler accepts -g at all.
This has a
Tom Lane wrote:
While fooling with adding -fno-strict-aliasing to configure, I realized
that there are still some oddities about its selection of CFLAGS. The
problems stem from the fact that autoconf will always select a default
value of CFLAGS that includes -g, if the compiler accepts -g at
19 matches
Mail list logo
