On 2012.09.18 at 16:55 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf > <mar...@trippelsdorf.de> wrote: > > 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. > > Indeed - we ship binaries with stripped debug info, usually not installed. > libbacktrace will only produce useless garbage then. So I want a way > to disable it (at least by default) at configure time.
To be fair, libbacktrace doesn't print garbage in this case. It's clever enough to just get out of the way... -- Markus
