Message-Id: <199910282305.TAA02148@rochester.rr.com>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.0 09/18/1999
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
cc: leisner AT rochester DOT rr DOT com
Subject: Re: -g vs -s 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 28 Oct 1999 16:01:41 EDT."
             <199910282001 DOT QAA26264 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 19:05:44 -0400
From: "Marty Leisner" <leisner AT rochester DOT rr DOT com>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com


Can you do anything useful with a core dump (a minimal stack backtrace?)

If you can, don't strip.

If you can't, that's too bad, but you might as well strip...

Marty Leisner


DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> writes  on Thu, 28 Oct 1999 16:01:41 EDT
     > 
     > Should a lack of -g (or -g*) imply -s in a gcc link?  It seems to be a
     > FAQ, and the users should be able to specify "-g0" to untrigger the
     > "-s".