On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 10:58 -0800, Jianxun Zhang wrote: > > On Feb 9, 2017, at 11:17 AM, Todor Minchev <todor.minc...@linux.intel.com> > > wrote: > > > > A debug version of the rmc binary can be built by using the debug > > Makefile target. This will include debug symbols and will disable > > compiler optimizations. > > > > Example: > > > > make debug > > > > Signed-off-by: Todor Minchev <todor.minc...@linux.intel.com> > > --- > > Makefile | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile > > index c58047a..fdd936f 100644 > > --- a/Makefile > > +++ b/Makefile > > @@ -23,6 +23,8 @@ ALL_OBJS := $(RMC_TOOL_OBJ) $(RMC_LIB_OBJ) > > RMC_CFLAGS := -Wall -I$(TOPDIR)/inc > > > > all: rmc > > +debug: RMC_CFLAGS += -DDEBUG -g -O0 > > +debug: rmc > > > I missed your feedback of V1, just recap it here also with my comment: > > - "Yup, the above will have the same effect as 'make debug'. > I thought that 'make debug' might be a convenient way to build a debug > binary? Do you think it makes sense to keep this extra target for > convenience since it doesn't affect the other usages of make?" > > You could have to come back to CFLAGS when the a hard coded debug flags is > not enough. > > And, why pass -DDEBUG in RMC_CFLAGS when invoking gcc to compile rmc? I don’t > see this macro DEBUG in the current rmc code.
I am planning to use the DEBUG macro in the future to add some more verbosity to binaries built with 'make debug' > > Thanks > > $(ALL_OBJS): %.o: %.c > > $(CC) -c $(CFLAGS) $(RMC_CFLAGS) $< -o $@ > > -- > > 2.11.1 > > > -- _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
