Tom Lane wrote:
> NikhilS <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > True, this is how I myself circumvent this problem too. But IMHO,
> > explicitly passing CFLAGS when we are invoking --enable-debug (which does
> > add -g, but leaves some optimization flag around which deters debugging)
> > does not seem correct?
> 
> If we did what you suggest, then --enable-debug would cause performance
> degradation, which would cause people to not use it, which would result
> in most binaries being completely undebuggable rather than only partially.
> Doesn't sound like a good tradeoff to me.
> 
> Personally, in my development tree I use a Makefile.custom containing
> 
> # back off optimization unless profiling
> ifeq ($(PROFILE),)
>    CFLAGS:= $(patsubst -O2,-O1,$(CFLAGS))
> endif
> 
> -O1 still generates "uninitialized variable" warnings but the code is a
> lot saner to step through ... not perfect, but saner.  It's been a
> workable compromise for a long time.  I don't recommend developing with
> -O0, exactly because it disables some mighty valuable warnings.

Agreed.  I use -O1 by default myself, unless I am doing performance testing.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian   bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
  EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

• Re: --enable-debug does not work with gcc at 2007-02-02 15:23:05 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: --enable-debug does not work with gcc at 2007-02-02 18:43:39 from Magnus Hagander

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Kate F	Date: 2007-02-02 16:10:38
	Subject: Re: Function proposal to find the type of a datum
Previous:	From: Kate F	Date: 2007-02-02 16:04:57
	Subject: Re: Function proposal to find the type of a datum