Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/1999/11/03/18:35:46
>
> On 2 Nov 99, at 15:48, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> >
> > On Tue, 2 Nov 1999 pavenis AT lanet DOT lv wrote:
> >
> > > Let's assume we have too files foo.c and bar.c in project. Rhide will
> > > generate commands like (if options -g and -O2 are requested in project)
> > > gcc -g -O2 -c foo.c -o foo.o
> > > gcc -g -O2 -c bar.c -o bar.o
> > > gcc foo.o bar.o -o foo.exe
> >
> > This can be handled by changing the relevant RHIDE_* macros so that it
> > passes -g or -g0 to the linker.
> >
> > > We'll have similar problem also with many makefiles.
> >
> > Most Makefile's I saw put -g into CFLAGS, so linking is done with -g as
> > well.
> >
>
> Yes. Usualy we can find some workaround for problems some change
> causes. But I'm afraid this would require also novices to do such
> changes (messing with RHIDE-* macros, etc). If we remeber -lstdcx
> problem in rhide... . I'm afraid this would cause at least the same
> amount of questions as -lstdcxx/-lstdcx problem. Even if we update
> current versions to use -s by default, many poeple will still use
> outdated versions (and mix new ones and outdated ones) and will run
> into a trouble.
>
> I think that the best is to avoid such hack
It's not a hack.
Anyway, how about telling RHIDE author about this if we decide to do
this so he can add the switches _now_ (instead of when it's too
late). I'm assuming here that adding the switches today wouldn't harm,
would it?
As for the question itself, it doesn't really matter to me. But
perhaps somebody will try to add core dump functionality some day; I
hope this will not make it harder for him/her.
Oldfield, Turbular Bell III,
MartinS
- Raw text -