Re: Debugging symbols by default

I am not sure about the idea of -g by default. I know lyx uses -g by
default, and the compile/install takes forever. In fact, I have removed
-g from my compiles here because it takes too long to compile/link and I
do it too often. When I need to debug, I recompile with -g. My concern
is that we may start to look very bloated with -g and those huge
binaries. My question is whether it is worth the install slowness/bloat?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > We had discussed a while ago that it might be a good idea to compile with
> > debugging symbols by default, at least when using GCC.
>
> A tricky questions is what to do with the --enable-debug option. For GCC
> it would become --disable-debug (i.e., remove -g from CFLAGS), but I'm not
> sure we'd need that if we provide 'make install-strip'.
>
> For other compilers, it's anyone's guess. We could continue to provide
> --enable-debug to add -g to CFLAGS. Some commerical vendors' compilers
> actually support various combinations of debugging and optimizing these
> days, but with different flags. So if you really try to build with
> debugging support on those platforms you'd probably want to supply the
> CFLAGS yourself.
>
> I suppose one of the less confusing choices would be to not have that
> option. Setting CFLAGS yourself is even less typing on average.
>
> --
> Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026