From: drupp AT cs DOT washington DOT edu (Douglas Rupp)
Message-Id: <199607311855.LAA20878@june.cs.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: should stubify strip?
To: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 11:55:50 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <9607311422.AA17908@clio.rice.edu> from "Charles Sandmann" at Jul 31, 96 09:22:01 am
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> 
> > It's acceptable for stubify to *always* strip the .exe.  
> 
> If you are a gdb user this makes sense, since gdb can't read symbols on the
> end of a .EXE - but EDEBUG32 and FSDB can (but it might be argued that
> for consistency only COFF files should keep them).  It seem the first
> step is to make a switch for stubify which could strip - then that could
> optionally be part of the specs file.  I don't have any strong options
> on if stripping .EXEs should be default, but it would make a lot of
> hello_world_size_inquiries disappear.  But then you will get the
> I don't get symbols when debugging inquiries ...
> 

It sounds like the only people that would be adversely effected by default
stripping of the .EXEs are novice users who wan't to use a debugger other
than gdb.  This would seem like a pretty small group.

I like the idea of putting the option the specs file and even making it
the default.