Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 13:15:28 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT ieva01 DOT lanet DOT lv>
cc: Sanda AT 97 DOT gyarab DOT cz, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: iostream.cc
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A41.4.05.9906171053580.76382-100000@ieva01.lanet.lv>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990617130951.6121B-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Thu, 17 Jun 1999, Andris Pavenis wrote:

> Should I build C++ libraries (libstdcxx.a and
> libgpp.a) for upcomming gcc-2.95 with debug info (the size of each library
> will grow approximatelly to 1.5-1.7Mb)

I'm not sure this is worthwhile.  After all, without the sources, the 
debug info won't help much, right?

As a general rule, each library is supposed to have three copies: the 
normal (unstripped) one, another one with debug info, and yet another one 
compiled with -pg.  In the case of libc.a, the two additional ones are 
usually libc_g.a and libc_p.a, and the compiler knows to link in the 
appropriate library given the compiler switches (e.g., if you say "gcc -g",
it is supposed to link with libc_g.a).

But DJGPP doesn't follow this scheme for the C library, so I'm not sure 
whether the C++ libraries should.