From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
Cc: | Radosław Smogura <rsmogura(at)softperience(dot)eu>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Patch - Debug builds without optimization |
Date: | 2011-06-16 14:10:49 |
Message-ID: | 29585.1308233449@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
> On Jun16, 2011, at 14:30 , Radosaw Smogura wrote:
>> I'm sending following patch which disables optimization when --enable-debug is passed. It was nasty (for me, at least) that debug build required passing of CFLAGS with -O0 to get nice traceable code.
> Unfortunately, with some compilers (gcc, I'm looking at you) you get
> considerably fewer warnings with -O0 than with -O1, even if you specify
> -Wall.
Yes. There is *zero* chance of this being accepted, because it would
break a lot of warnings that developers need to see.
> I usually use -O1 for debug builds, these are usually still at least
> somewhat debuggable with gdb.
I tend to do that too, but I still think that folding it into
--enable-debug would be a mistake. The normal assumption (at least when
using gcc) is that --enable-debug doesn't cost any performance. We
would annoy many people, especially packagers, if that stopped being
true.
I could see providing some other nonstandard configure switch that
changed the default -O level ... but realistically, would that do
anything that you couldn't already do by setting CFLAGS, ie
./configure CFLAGS="-O0 -g"
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-16 14:14:39 | Re: use less space in xl_xact_commit patch |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2011-06-16 14:05:30 | Re: psql describe.c cleanup |