I am not sure about the idea of -g by default. I know lyx uses -g by default, and the compile/install takes forever. In fact, I have removed -g from my compiles here because it takes too long to compile/link and I do it too often. When I need to debug, I recompile with -g. My concern is that we may start to look very bloated with -g and those huge binaries. My question is whether it is worth the install slowness/bloat?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > We had discussed a while ago that it might be a good idea to compile with > > debugging symbols by default, at least when using GCC. > > A tricky questions is what to do with the --enable-debug option. For GCC > it would become --disable-debug (i.e., remove -g from CFLAGS), but I'm not > sure we'd need that if we provide 'make install-strip'. > > For other compilers, it's anyone's guess. We could continue to provide > --enable-debug to add -g to CFLAGS. Some commerical vendors' compilers > actually support various combinations of debugging and optimizing these > days, but with different flags. So if you really try to build with > debugging support on those platforms you'd probably want to supply the > CFLAGS yourself. > > I suppose one of the less confusing choices would be to not have that > option. Setting CFLAGS yourself is even less typing on average. > > -- > Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
