On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:04 PM, David Kirkby wrote:
>
> 2009/7/29 William Stein :
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Nick Alexander wrote:
>>>
It feels to me as though higher value of SAGE_DEBUG should do more
debugging, not less. There could be two variables: SAGE_DEBUG and
S
2009/7/29 William Stein :
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Nick Alexander wrote:
>>
>>> It feels to me as though higher value of SAGE_DEBUG should do more
>>> debugging, not less. There could be two variables: SAGE_DEBUG and
>>> SAGE_OPTIMIZE, each of which could be set to various levels...
>
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Nick Alexander wrote:
>
>> It feels to me as though higher value of SAGE_DEBUG should do more
>> debugging, not less. There could be two variables: SAGE_DEBUG and
>> SAGE_OPTIMIZE, each of which could be set to various levels...
>
> +1 to names revealing intent!
> It feels to me as though higher value of SAGE_DEBUG should do more
> debugging, not less. There could be two variables: SAGE_DEBUG and
> SAGE_OPTIMIZE, each of which could be set to various levels...
+1 to names revealing intent! And +1 to having debug info *on by
default*.
Nick
--~--~---
On Jul 28, 5:42 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Robert
>
>
>
>
>
> Bradshaw wrote:
>
> > On Jul 28, 2009, at 4:16 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:56 PM, David
> >> Kirkby wrote:
>
> >>> 2009/7/28 William Stein :
>
> Cool. So your proposa
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Robert
Bradshaw wrote:
>
> On Jul 28, 2009, at 4:16 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:56 PM, David
>> Kirkby wrote:
>>>
>>> 2009/7/28 William Stein :
>>>
Cool. So your proposal is basically the opposite of David Kirkby's?
His was
On Jul 28, 2009, at 4:16 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:56 PM, David
> Kirkby wrote:
>>
>> 2009/7/28 William Stein :
>>
>>> Cool. So your proposal is basically the opposite of David Kirkby's?
>>> His was to have "-g" nowhere by default, and yours is to have "-g"
>>> eve
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:56 PM, David Kirkby wrote:
>
> 2009/7/28 William Stein :
>
>> Cool. So your proposal is basically the opposite of David Kirkby's?
>> His was to have "-g" nowhere by default, and yours is to have "-g"
>> everywhere possible by default. :-)
>>
>> As a Sage users and deve
2009/7/28 William Stein :
> Cool. So your proposal is basically the opposite of David Kirkby's?
> His was to have "-g" nowhere by default, and yours is to have "-g"
> everywhere possible by default. :-)
>
> As a Sage users and developer, and after hearing Robert's arguments, I
> can definitely
On 2009-Jul-28 01:22:58 +0100, David Kirkby wrote:
>I noticed that several packages build Sage with the -g option to ,
>which adds debugging information. This has 3 downsides
>
>1) The binaries are slower
gcc allows '-O -g' so the binaries shouldn't be slower when gcc is
used. Some other C/C++ c
On 27-Jul-09, at 5:22 PM, David Kirkby wrote:
>
> I noticed that several packages build Sage with the -g option to ,
> which adds debugging information. This has 3 downsides
>
> 1) The binaries are slower
> 2) The binaries are bigger
> 3) Possibly takes longer to compile - I've not verified this
> Cool. So your proposal is basically the opposite of David Kirkby's?
> His was to have "-g" nowhere by default, and yours is to have "-g"
> everywhere possible by default. :-)
Yes, definitely (with the above mentioned exception)
Martin
--
name: Martin Albrecht
_pgp: http://pgp.mit.edu:1137
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Martin
Albrecht wrote:
>
>> Interesting. Then SAGE_DEBUG couldn't be the default as Robert
>> suggested, and it can't control adding debug symbols. Since for the
>> use case Robert and I described, people would want -O2 (or whatever
>> the default is) and -ggdb.
> Interesting. Then SAGE_DEBUG couldn't be the default as Robert
> suggested, and it can't control adding debug symbols. Since for the
> use case Robert and I described, people would want -O2 (or whatever
> the default is) and -ggdb.
I think it shouldn't be default but -g should be default exce
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 7:36 AM, Martin
Albrecht wrote:
>
>> I believe the variable SAGE_DEBUG was supposed to add debugging
>> support. If that is so, then it would seem to be sensible to make use
>> of it and apply it in a consistent manner.
>
> I use SAGE_DEBUG in the Singular SPKG to force -O0
> I believe the variable SAGE_DEBUG was supposed to add debugging
> support. If that is so, then it would seem to be sensible to make use
> of it and apply it in a consistent manner.
I use SAGE_DEBUG in the Singular SPKG to force -O0 and -ggdb
Martin
--
name: Martin Albrecht
_pgp: http://pgp.m
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:44 AM, Robert
Bradshaw wrote:
>
> On Jul 27, 2009, at 5:22 PM, David Kirkby wrote:
>
>>
>> I noticed that several packages build Sage with the -g option to ,
>> which adds debugging information. This has 3 downsides
>>
>> 1) The binaries are slower
>> 2) The binaries are
On Jul 28, 2009, at 5:44 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
> 2009/7/28 Robert Bradshaw :
>>
>> On Jul 27, 2009, at 5:22 PM, David Kirkby wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I noticed that several packages build Sage with the -g option to ,
>>> which adds debugging information. This has 3 downsides
>>>
>>> 1) The binaries ar
2009/7/28 Robert Bradshaw :
>
> On Jul 27, 2009, at 5:22 PM, David Kirkby wrote:
>
>>
>> I noticed that several packages build Sage with the -g option to ,
>> which adds debugging information. This has 3 downsides
>>
>> 1) The binaries are slower
>> 2) The binaries are bigger
>> 3) Possibly takes
On Jul 27, 2009, at 5:22 PM, David Kirkby wrote:
>
> I noticed that several packages build Sage with the -g option to ,
> which adds debugging information. This has 3 downsides
>
> 1) The binaries are slower
> 2) The binaries are bigger
> 3) Possibly takes longer to compile - I've not verified th
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:30:11 -0700
William Stein wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 5:22 PM, David
> Kirkby wrote:
> >
> > I noticed that several packages build Sage with the -g option to ,
> > which adds debugging information. This has 3 downsides
> >
> > 1) The binaries are slower
> > 2) The
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 5:22 PM, David Kirkby wrote:
>
> I noticed that several packages build Sage with the -g option to ,
> which adds debugging information. This has 3 downsides
>
> 1) The binaries are slower
> 2) The binaries are bigger
> 3) Possibly takes longer to compile - I've not verified
22 matches
Mail list logo
