On 05/22/2012 03:19 PM, Lubos Lunak wrote:
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?
But --enable-dbgutil enables that as well (and more of 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).
So, case closed? Everybody is more or less happy with the status quo of
--enable-dbgutil not implicitly affecting default -O2, as far as I
understand.
Stephan
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
