From: drupp AT cs DOT washington DOT edu (Douglas Rupp)
Message-Id: <199607311520.IAA23803@june.cs.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: gcc -g -o
To: dj AT delorie DOT com (DJ Delorie)
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 08:20:01 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: drupp AT cs DOT washington DOT edu, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <199607311126.HAA24930@delorie.com> from "DJ Delorie" at Jul 31, 96 07:26:49 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 GNU theory is that switches shouldn't have unexpected side
> affects.  -g should control debugging symbols and nothing else.  -s
> should control stripping and nothing else.

Isn't stripping the debug information controlling the debugging symbols?

> 
> > the unstripped coff file preserved in any case.  I'm only proposing that
> > the lack of -g cause the .exe to be stripped.
> 
> It's acceptable for stubify to *always* strip the .exe.  It's
> acceptable for there to be a new switch that controls it (although
> such a change requires changing gcc, so you have to pass it by the
> FSF).  It's not acceptable for it to be tied to a switch with another
> purpose.
>

Always stripping the .exe wouldn't be such a bad idea either, although
that might be a little radical for some.