On 09.11.2012 07:06, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
Argh, I hate myself for continuing this thread, but isn't there a
risk that people will think "--enable-backtrace" is related to the
code we have (but have disabled for some reason?), or used to have, to
display backtraces in the application itself, w
Argh, I hate myself for continuing this thread, but isn't there a
risk that people will think "--enable-backtrace" is related to the
code we have (but have disabled for some reason?), or used to have, to
display backtraces in the application itself, when it notices some
fatal signal/exception (
Le Thu, 08 Nov 2012 12:40:03 +0100, Tor Lillqvist a écrit:
the ones who used it have done so for quite a while under the current
name...
But surely what we strive for with all of this is not to make things
easier for people who already know what something means, and know that
they want it,
On Wednesday 07 of November 2012, David Ostrovsky wrote:
> If no one has any opinion on it, I'm going to name it
> --enable-symbols-only.
Just call it whatever reasonably makes sense. There will be always somebody
disliking some detail.
> May be after restoring that old --enable-symbols way, we
On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 09:01 +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> In light of the above, --enable-debugging-information or some shortening
> like --enable-debug-info?
Ooh - I like it :-) Indeed the double meaning of symbols is rather
annoying there; debuginfo is a cleaner concept at least for
> the ones who used it have done so for quite a while under the current name...
But surely what we strive for with all of this is not to make things
easier for people who already know what something means, and know that
they want it, or know that they don't want it?
We want to make the meaning o
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 5:15 AM, David Ostrovsky wrote:
>
> Decision?
the ones who wanted it removed surely don't care since they do not use it.
the ones who used it have done so for quite a while under the current name...
Norbert
___
LibreOffice mailin
On 07.11.2012 22:02, David Ostrovsky wrote:
So to reflect what these options mean exactly one should name it as
follows:
enable-symbols: --enable-symbols-and-preserve-optimization
enable-debug: --enable-symbols-and-disable-optimization
enable-dbgutil:
--enable-symbols-and-disable-optimization-a
On 08/11/12 11:05, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
>> One problem with "S: symbols" is that "symbols" is a vague term here.
>
> http://www.network-theory.co.uk/docs/gccintro/gccintro_37.html
> "The debug compilation option works by storing the nam
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> One problem with "S: symbols" is that "symbols" is a vague term here.
http://www.network-theory.co.uk/docs/gccintro/gccintro_37.html
"The debug compilation option works by storing the names and source
code line-numbers of functions and var
On 07/11/12 22:02, David Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 07.11.2012 17:16, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
>>
>>
>> If no one has any opinion on it, I'm going to name it
>> --enable-symbols-only.
>>
>>
>> I don't like that, as it strongly suggests that this option would
>> cause some kind of lighter, symbol/add
On 11/07/2012 10:02 PM, David Ostrovsky wrote:
On 07.11.2012 17:16, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
If no one has any opinion on it, I'm going to name it
--enable-symbols-only.
I don't like that, as it strongly suggests that this option would
cause some kind of lighter, symbol/address mapping only
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 3:02 PM, David Ostrovsky wrote:
> Given that we don't want to rename two last options, we are trying to find a
> new (less confusing and not so long) name
> for the first one:
> --enable-symbols-and-preserve-optimization
nah, --enable-symbol is just fine
Norbert
__
On 07.11.2012 17:16, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
If no one has any opinion on it, I'm going to name it
--enable-symbols-only.
I don't like that, as it strongly suggests that this option would
cause some kind of lighter, symbol/address mapping only kind of data
to be emitted, as opposed to
>
>
> If no one has any opinion on it, I'm going to name it
> --enable-symbols-only.
I don't like that, as it strongly suggests that this option would cause
some kind of lighter, symbol/address mapping only kind of data to be
emitted, as opposed to full debug information. Which is doesn't, at le
Am 07.11.2012 16:20, schrieb Lubos Lunak:
> >It also might be a good idea to reconsider the "symbols" name,
> >unless you want to repeatedly explain it to people who for some
> >reason keep getting confused by all this stuff over and over again
> >(it's a lot of fun I can assure you, and "debug"
On Wednesday 07 of November 2012, d.ostrov...@idaia.de wrote:
> [bringing the discussion to ML as it related to other thread on this topic]
>
> Quoting "Lubos Lunák (via Code Review)" :
> > Lubos Lunák has posted comments on this change.
> >
> > Change subject: restore --enable-symbols option again
[bringing the discussion to ML as it related to other thread on this topic]
Quoting "Lubos Lunák (via Code Review)" :
Lubos Lunák has posted comments on this change.
Change subject: restore --enable-symbols option again
..
Pa
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> I don't think it works like that. What users run is most probably what's been
> build using that MSVC thingy, which doesn't understand either of the options.
there are some effort to fix that... the 'symbol server stuff'
>
> On Monday 05 of
On 11/06/2012 11:36 AM, Lubos Lunak wrote:
the only thing that doesn't understand -Os is
probably MSVC, and who here actually develops using that (in addition to
something else)?
There are occasionally those who just like to build and develop with
LibreOffice only on Windows, and only using M
On Monday 05 of November 2012, Michael Meeks wrote:
> Why do I extensively use that option, though I'm not a packager:
>
> * I like to run the code the end-user runs - warts and all.
In other words, you like to skip the various checks that are there in the
debug build. Or maybe you l
On 05.11.2012 17:15, Michael Meeks wrote:
Why do I extensively use that option, though I'm not a packager:
* I like to run the code the end-user runs - warts and all.
* I like to be able to profile accurately without re-building
everything (cf. above)
*
On 05/11/12 17:59, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> On 11/05/2012 05:15 PM, Michael Meeks wrote:
>> Having done a from-clean build, and been unable to debug because my
>> autogen.lastrun contains --enable-symbols - and that now fails to do
>> anything - I did some digging to try to restore that funct
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> On 11/05/2012 05:15 PM, Michael Meeks wrote:
>>
>> Having done a from-clean build, and been unable to debug because
>> my
>> autogen.lastrun contains --enable-symbols - and that now fails to do
>> anything - I did some digging to t
On 11/05/2012 05:15 PM, Michael Meeks wrote:
Having done a from-clean build, and been unable to debug because my
autogen.lastrun contains --enable-symbols - and that now fails to do
anything - I did some digging to try to restore that functionality.
It appears that prepending:
C
On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 15:00 +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> the --enable-symbols/debug/dbgutil DEBUG/debug options and some confusion
Having done a from-clean build, and been unable to debug because my
autogen.lastrun contains --enable-symbols - and that now fails to do
anything - I did some
Hello,
at the conference we had a discussion about
the --enable-symbols/debug/dbgutil DEBUG/debug options and some confusion
these occassionally cause. As a result, I've committed some patches that
clean up and change them in the following way:
The intended behavior now, in short:
- --enab
27 matches
Mail list logo
