On 2012.09.18 at 06:58 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 1:49 AM, Richard Guenther > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> wrote: > >> OK for mainline? > > > > Hm. Can you please be that verbose only for ENABLE_CHECKING compilers? > > That would be easy enough but I don't think it's a good idea. The > time when this can help the most is when we get a bug report from > somebody who doesn't know how to or doesn't want to share the input > file. The backtrace can show us whether this is a known ICE. But > that will only work if we actually dump the backtrace for a release > compiler. > > It's not like this is something that happens in an ordinary > compilation. I think verbosity is just fine here. > > > Or at least provide a way to disable the backtrace printing with a configure > > switch. > > Again, I don't think this is necessary or appropriate. I could add a > command line option to disable the backtrace if you think that is > important, but I think it's important that the default be to print it.
If you use "make install-strip" to install, then libbacktrace will have been build in vain. At least for this case a way to disable libbacktrace should be available. -- Markus
