On Monday 21 of May 2012, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > On 05/21/2012 05:10 PM, Lubos Lunak wrote: > > On Friday 18 of May 2012, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > >> Ah, you wanted --enable-dbgutil to disable -O2, the same way that > >> --enable-debug does. Had missed that point. Hm, as I said, I prefer my > >> --enable-dbgutil --disable-debug builds to be -O2. > > > > What is the point of that combination? As far as I can tell > > --enable-dbgutil is like --enable-debug but for changes that are BIC, so > > only dbgutil without debug does not make much sense to me. > > I rarely use a debugger to step through code, so I prefer to avoid the > --enable-debug settings that, AFAIU, are mainly there to aid in > step-through debugging, but nevertheless cause potential deviation from > a production build (like -O0, -fno-inline).
But --enable-debug also enables asserts, logging and similar functionality that should be rather useful for developer builds, doesn't it? > Turning this around: What is it that you find problematic with > --enable-dbgutil not affecting the default -O2? I'm not strongly opposed to it, it just doesn't make much sense to me that way. I see --enable-dbgutil as another, higher, level of --enable-debug, in fact I wonder why it is not simply something like --enable-debug=full. So if you insist, I don't mind that much, but I still don't understand why anyone would want dbgutil without debug (although, on the other hand, dbgutil not affecting e.g. -O2 would not matter much because of this anyway). -- Lubos Lunak l.lu...@suse.cz _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
