[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Debug libs
Re: Debug libs
Sat, 05 Jun 2004 09:18:52 +0200
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040514
AFICT debug=yes defines DEBUG yet has no effect on NDEBUG. DEBUG is
used rather sparsely in core (I think Alex M. identified only 2 or three
places in -base). Most of the logging functions in -core depend on
NDEBUG. So there is not really that much of a difference wrt logging
capabilities between debug=yes/no.
Now before someone goes changing that, I want to point out that I think
that I believe it's a good thing that debug and default (ie non-debug)
libraries do not differ in code generation. We have enough trouble
hunting down bugs as it is. Especially when we don't have the platform
readily available and we ask users to try the debug version with gdb and
the bugs would suddenly disappear.
If someone specifically wants a version w/o that debugging info, they
could still request it with CPPFLAGS=-DNDEBUG . Well I guess NSDebug.h
would need to define empty debug macros when NDEBUG isn't defined.
Looks like cleaning that up is a separate project...
But back to debug=yes/no. I think the only thing this should do, is add
debug information to the executables (i.e. -g).
PS: FWIW, I still don't think that installing standard/debug/profile
libs in parallel is a good idea. But *if* we do actually keep this
feature then we should at least rethink whether -make should go out of
it's way to link non-matching executables.
Re: Debug libs, Alex Perez, 2004/06/04