Mail Archives: cygwin/2005/01/21/22:54:59
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 05:28:38PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 02:47:20PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 02:45:44PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>>>On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 02:02:33PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>>
>>>> tar xjf cygwin-1.5.12-1-src.tar.bz2
>>>> cd cygwin-1.5.12-1
>>>> mkdir build
>>>> cd build
>>>> (../configure; make) >& make.out
>>>>
>>>>It does make sense to check CVS or a snapshot to see if your problem is
>>>>fixed before you go to any effort trying to debug a problem, however.
>>>
>>>Great. Just put the above in the FAQ, plus some words about needing an
>>>unstripped dll.
>>
>>Information about building the DLL is already in the FAQ.
>
>If you refer to http://cygwin.com/faq/faq0.html#SEC102 it has the
>apparently obsolete information about needing a separate w32api and it
>recommends to use cvs.
You included the section where I said it was probably a good idea to use
CVS or a snapshot. So, the FAQ is accurate there. You're right that
the rest of it should be updated.
However, if the fact that the cygwin FAQ entry is mildly inaccurate was
a true stumbling block for people who wanted to debug the DLL, then I
think we would have seen a complaint about it by now.
I think it's pretty clear that the people who are clamoring for this
don't really know what they want and assume that a dll with debugging
symbols will either enable them to debug the dll without going through
the awful rigors of building or they think they would have a better
opportunity of having cygwin tech support look at their back traces.
Neither is precisely true.
However, I have already said that it is on my todo list to try to
provide a debuginfo package for cygwin. It will show up in some
future release.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -