Simo Sorce wrote:
> Kevin, have you ever debugged with -O2 ?
Yes. In fact, almost always.
> It's more than reasonable to want -O0.
> At -O2 some code becomes really annoying to follow because gcc will
> optimize away way too much of it into registers (and gdb will not print
> you the values you n
On 25.4.2014 20:03, Adam Jackson wrote:
Maybe think
about how to diagnose what's going wrong and fix the bug instead of
philosophizing.
It seems that
/usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh
experts don't read this thread so I have filled bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091989
--
Petr^2
On 25/04/14 20:10, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Fri, 2014-04-25 at 14:03 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 2014-04-25 at 18:10 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Petr Spacek wrote:
I'm going to reproduce and debug issue in named. Do you see any specific
reason why I should use -O2 for serious debugging/devel
On Fri, 2014-04-25 at 14:03 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-04-25 at 18:10 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Petr Spacek wrote:
> > > I'm going to reproduce and debug issue in named. Do you see any specific
> > > reason why I should use -O2 for serious debugging/development sessions?
> >
>
On Fri, 2014-04-25 at 18:10 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Petr Spacek wrote:
> > I'm going to reproduce and debug issue in named. Do you see any specific
> > reason why I should use -O2 for serious debugging/development sessions?
>
> IMHO, you should always debug with optimization enabled. GDB can
Petr Spacek wrote:
> I'm going to reproduce and debug issue in named. Do you see any specific
> reason why I should use -O2 for serious debugging/development sessions?
IMHO, you should always debug with optimization enabled. GDB can cope quite
well with it, and it is the only way to actually debu
Am 25.04.2014 17:10, schrieb Adam Jackson:
> On Fri, 2014-04-25 at 16:50 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>> but it don't justify incompatible flags
>> IMHO you enter the area of "undefined behavior" with that
>
> Your humble opinion is misguided, building without _FORTIFY_SOURCE is an
> entirely r
On Fri, 2014-04-25 at 16:50 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> but it don't justify incompatible flags
> IMHO you enter the area of "undefined behavior" with that
Your humble opinion is misguided, building without _FORTIFY_SOURCE is an
entirely reasonable thing for an end developer to want to do on th
On 25.4.2014 16:50, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 25.04.2014 16:43, schrieb Petr Spacek:
On 25.4.2014 16:28, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 25.04.2014 16:10, schrieb Petr Spacek:
I'm trying to rebuild bind-9.9.4-12.P2.fc20.src.rpm with
CFLAGS="$CFLAGS $RPM_OPT_FLAGS -O0 -ggdb".
I did the simplest possibl
Am 25.04.2014 16:43, schrieb Petr Spacek:
> On 25.4.2014 16:28, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 25.04.2014 16:10, schrieb Petr Spacek:
>>> I'm trying to rebuild bind-9.9.4-12.P2.fc20.src.rpm with
>>> CFLAGS="$CFLAGS $RPM_OPT_FLAGS -O0 -ggdb".
>>>
>>> I did the simplest possible thing - edited the origi
On 25.4.2014 16:28, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 25.04.2014 16:10, schrieb Petr Spacek:
I'm trying to rebuild bind-9.9.4-12.P2.fc20.src.rpm with
CFLAGS="$CFLAGS $RPM_OPT_FLAGS -O0 -ggdb".
I did the simplest possible thing - edited the original spec file (see
spec.diff) and built the package:
$ rpm
Am 25.04.2014 16:10, schrieb Petr Spacek:
> I'm trying to rebuild bind-9.9.4-12.P2.fc20.src.rpm with
> CFLAGS="$CFLAGS $RPM_OPT_FLAGS -O0 -ggdb".
>
> I did the simplest possible thing - edited the original spec file (see
> spec.diff) and built the package:
> $ rpmbuild -ba bind.spec
>
> The pac
Hello list,
I'm trying to rebuild bind-9.9.4-12.P2.fc20.src.rpm with
CFLAGS="$CFLAGS $RPM_OPT_FLAGS -O0 -ggdb".
I did the simplest possible thing - edited the original spec file (see
spec.diff) and built the package:
$ rpmbuild -ba bind.spec
The package builds and BIND itself seems to work. T
13 matches
Mail list logo
