From: Elliott Oti <e DOT oti AT stud DOT warande DOT ruu DOT nl>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: DJGPP vs Borland C++
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 00:24:06 -0800
Organization: Academic Computer Centre Utrecht, (ACCU)
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <32F44F26.5569@stud.warande.ruu.nl>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 970127082529 DOT 7773G-100000 AT is> <5d124e$rqi$1 AT mack DOT rt66 DOT com> <32F47C06 DOT 62A8 AT cs DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: warande1078.warande.ruu.nl
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

John M. Aldrich wrote:
> 
> Brennan The Rev. Bas Underwood wrote:
> >
> > Also, don't compile with -O or -fomit-frame-pointer if you want a coherent
> > stack traceback.
> 
> The traceback under gcc is usually 100% reliable even when -O or -O2 is
> used.  Now if you start using -O3 and -fomit-frame-pointer, you could
> start hosing the debugging info, but one of the features of gcc is that
> debugging is still reliable even with optimizations. 
I may be mistaken, but methinks gcc does not stand the inclusion of
both -fomit-frame-pointer and -g on the same command line.
Debugging with O2 is possible.