Hi Wol,
On 2010-11-18 at 11:29 +, Wols Lists wrote:
> > So, I think that it should default to -O2 on a normal build, and to
> > -O0 when using --enable-symbols. Don't see the point of using
> > optimizations when building a version for debugging purposes.
>
> What if it's the optimisation th
Hi *,
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Caolán McNamara wrote:
>
> I agree with Dave really. I get confused about them, I don't think
> people are using --enable-dbgutil anyway, and I always perceive it as
> some infrastructure handy under windows to get a console that
> warnings/asserts can get
On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 03:19 -0700, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> On a related note, what is your take on --enable-dbgutil vs.
> --enable-debug? Are they designed to do clearly separate things? Do
> people in general understand the difference? If either answer is no,
> should these two concepts be merge
> * insert arbitrary debugging code that is only present in 'special'
> builds: #ifdef DBG_UTIL and #if OSL_DEBUG_LEVEL > n
Unfortunately, I think those have been mixed up in the past occasionally. When
I recently tried a build with --enable-dbgutil but not --enable-debug, I came
across a hand
On 17/11/10 18:50, Santiago Bosio wrote:
> Hi!
>
> When LibO is built using --enable-symbols, it still uses -O2
> optimizations, making hard to debug execution with GDB.
>
> So, I think that it should default to -O2 on a normal build, and to
> -O0 when using --enable-symbols. Don't see the point of
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:13:36PM +0100, David Tardon wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 03:19:39AM -0700, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> > On a related note, what is your take on --enable-dbgutil vs.
> > --enable-debug? Are they designed to do clearly separate things?
>
> IMHO no. Both allow to:
> * use
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 03:50:33PM -0300, Santiago Bosio wrote:
> Hi!
>
> When LibO is built using --enable-symbols, it still uses -O2
> optimizations, making hard to debug execution with GDB.
>
You can export nopt=true before building to turn optimizations off.
D.
_
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 03:19:39AM -0700, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> On a related note, what is your take on --enable-dbgutil vs. --enable-debug?
> Are they designed to do clearly separate things?
IMHO no. Both allow to:
* use assertions
* insert arbitrary debugging code that is only present in 'spec
On a related note, what is your take on --enable-dbgutil vs. --enable-debug?
Are they designed to do clearly separate things? Do people in general
understand the difference? If either answer is no, should these two concepts be
merged?
--tml
___
Libr
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 15:50 -0300, Santiago Bosio wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> When LibO is built using --enable-symbols, it still uses -O2
>> optimizations, making hard to debug execution with GDB.
>>
>> So, I think that it should default to -O2 on
On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 15:50 -0300, Santiago Bosio wrote:
> Hi!
>
> When LibO is built using --enable-symbols, it still uses -O2
> optimizations, making hard to debug execution with GDB.
>
> So, I think that it should default to -O2 on a normal build, and to -O0
> when using --enable-symbols.
Hi!
When LibO is built using --enable-symbols, it still uses -O2
optimizations, making hard to debug execution with GDB.
So, I think that it should default to -O2 on a normal build, and to -O0
when using --enable-symbols. Don't see the point of using optimizations
when building a version for
12 matches
Mail list logo
