From: drupp AT cs DOT washington DOT edu (Douglas Rupp)
Message-Id: <199607311514.IAA23177@june.cs.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: gcc -g -o
To: broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de (Hans-Bernhard Broeker)
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 08:14:01 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: drupp AT cs DOT washington DOT edu, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <9607310811.AA25549@axpmgr.physik.rwth-aachen.de> from "Hans-Bernhard Broeker" at Jul 31, 96 10:11:17 am
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> > That's right, but what is normal behavior?  Different flavors of Unix treat
> > the -g flag differently when it's passed to ld. Some ignore it, some don't.
> > I'm trying to argue that it's reasonable for us to do something with it.

Where are you getting this?  No one said *anything* about always compiling
with -g !

> 
> Do you have any idea how hard it might be to convince RMS to include
> such changes into the distribution? In case you didn't know, FSF
> standards (as read by RMS) tell you that all binaries should be
> installed with 'at least minimal debug information'. That's why no FSF
> makefile installs programs in a stripped way (no 'strip' call, no
> 'install -s'). If you compiled them with '-g', they will install a
> version with full debug information. Breaking this rule might get us
> into trouble with the FSF, like them refusing to incorporate future
> changes from the DJGPP team.
>