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. However,
> >> > the actual present behavior of our configure script is to default to -g
> >> > for every compiler, and I think that that is a big mistake. On most
> >> > non-gcc compilers, -g disables optimizations, which is way too high a
> >> > price to pay for production use.
> >>
> >> You do realize that as of now, -g is the default for gcc? Was that the
> >> intent?
> >
> > I was going to ask that myself. It seems strange to include -g by default ---
> > we have --enable-debug, and that should control -g on all platforms.
>
> Could it be that there ought to be a difference between the defaults of
> a devel CVS tree, a BETA tarball and a final "production" release?
I am afraid that adds too much confusion to the debug situation. We
have a flag to do -g; let people use it if they want it.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073