delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
Date: | Sun, 31 Oct 1999 09:41:36 +0200 (IST) |
From: | Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> |
X-Sender: | eliz AT is |
To: | DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> |
cc: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
Subject: | Re: -g vs -s |
In-Reply-To: | <199910282001.QAA26264@envy.delorie.com> |
Message-ID: | <Pine.SUN.3.91.991031094044.2988I-100000@is> |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
Reply-To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
X-Mailing-List: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
X-Unsubscribes-To: | listserv AT delorie DOT com |
On Thu, 28 Oct 1999, DJ Delorie wrote: > Should a lack of -g (or -g*) imply -s in a gcc link? Perhaps we should change the specs file to do this. Shouldn't other switches, like -pg or -a, disable -s as well?
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |