Am 25.04.2014 16:43, schrieb Petr Spacek: > On 25.4.2014 16:28, Reindl Harald wrote: >> Am 25.04.2014 16:10, schrieb Petr Spacek: >>> I'm trying to rebuild bind-9.9.4-12.P2.fc20.src.rpm with >>> CFLAGS="$CFLAGS $RPM_OPT_FLAGS -O0 -ggdb". >>> >>> I did the simplest possible thing - edited the original spec file (see >>> spec.diff) and built the package: >>> $ rpmbuild -ba bind.spec >>> >>> The package builds and BIND itself seems to work. The problem is that new >>> debuginfo package is missing 118 out of >>> 283 header files in /usr/src/debug/bind-9.9.4-P2. >>> >>> It seems that "-O0" alone (instead of "-O0 -ggdb") causes the same problem. >>> >>> I would be glad if anyone can give me advice how to debug this. >>> >>> Original packages from Fedora 20 (with all headers in /usr/src/debug): >>> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=502596 >>> >>> Packages built with -O0 -ggdb (scratch build): >>> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6778483 >> >> just don't do that > I'm going to reproduce and debug issue in named. Do you see any specific > reason > why I should use -O2 for serious debugging/development sessions?
no but then don't include $CFLAGS $RPM_OPT_FLAGS >> and read compiler warnings > Thank you very much for your very helpful advice! :-) > >> the debuginfo package is your smallest problem > I'm afraid it is not please look at the whole picture of the FLAGS you are using >> you just kill security features like D_FORTIFY_SOURCE with -O0 >> >> warning: #warning _FORTIFY_SOURCE requires compiling with optimization (-O) >> [-Wcpp] > I think my use case justifies it but it don't justify incompatible flags IMHO you enter the area of "undefined behavior" with that -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 is part of the Fedora default flags
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
