[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: default -g ??!?

From: MK
Subject: Re: default -g ??!?
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 10:47:48 -0500

On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 10:07:31 +0900
Miles Bader <address@hidden> wrote:
> MK <address@hidden> writes:
> > If you say so, then I guess I am imagining things ;)  I have never
> > given the issue much thought until now, I suppose I need to do a bit
> > more research on the issue.
> Indeed, it's often a good idea to do the research _before_ posting
> flames and rants...

Yes.  On the other hand, in my defence, GNU's online docs for make:

which I sited earlier after searching for "debugging symbols", do not
make a mature attempt to explain the issue at all and instead just use
inflammatory phrases like "Users who don't mind being helpless can
strip the executables later if they wish," and "Devil-may-care users
can use the install-strip target to do that".  No further
explanation.  Is this how I'm supposed to learn about Coding
Standards?  Via jokes and threats of some inexplicable bogey-man?

If every piece of documentation related to this issue is just as
flippant and patronizing, maybe it's no surprise I had to learn this in
a mail list discussion.   On the other hand, if there were even one
sentence under "target all" justifying the default, such as,
"Debugging symbols do not affect performance, and are not loaded into
memory during normal use" instead of offhand references to the Devil,
etc, this all could have been avoided.  $0.02.

Anyway, all apologies and thanks everyone for taking interest and a bit
of time with me here.  I have been a bit paranoid with the
packaging because I want to see things done right, and understand
the whys and wherefores.  Excuse my previous extraneous paragraphs as
"debugging symbols" ;) Lucky I left them in or I'd still be in the

"The angel of history[...]is turned toward the past." (Walter Benjamin)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]