Peter Eisentraut wrote:Tom Lane writes:
> What Peter was advocating in that thread was that we enable -g by > default *when building with gcc*. I have no problem with that, since > there is (allegedly) no performance penalty for -g with gcc. However, > the actual present behavior of our configure script is to default to -g > for every compiler, and I think that that is a big mistake. On most > non-gcc compilers, -g disables optimizations, which is way too high a > price to pay for production use.
You do realize that as of now, -g is the default for gcc? Was that the intent?
I was going to ask that myself. It seems strange to include -g by default --- we have --enable-debug, and that should control -g on all platforms.
Could it be that there ought to be a difference between the defaults of a devel CVS tree, a BETA tarball and a final "production" release?
Jan
-- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== [EMAIL PROTECTED] #
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
