Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Have gcc use -g, add --disable-debug, rename?
> >
> > Personally I don't like the idea of this behavior defaulting differently
> > depending on which compiler you use. I can see the practical arguments
> > for doing so, but it still rubs me the wrong way. Can anyone offer new
> > arguments pro or con here?
>
> You and I think don't like the inconsistency, while Jan likes the debug
> where ever possible (gcc). There were a few others who liked the debug
> for gcc by default.
>
> I think if folks are debugging, they probably should turn off
> optimization anyway to make sense of the output, and we are never going
> to ship without optimization. What might be nice would be for
> --enable-debug to turn off optimization as well so people can actually
> make sense of the code in the debugger.
>
> Basically, I don't like the debug because of:
>
> inconsistency with non-gcc
> binary bloat
> binary bloat encourages strip, which is really bad
>
> Usually function names are enough for us to take a guess on the cause.
I think I have a compromise for --enable-debug: How about if
--enable-debug removes optimization, adds -g (or -g3 for macro debugging
symbols in gcc), and maybe even enables casserts. That way,
--enable-debug gives us a super-debuggable binary that we would never
ship by default. Also, I can add a section to the release notes that
discourages people running strip.
-- 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