Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:53:54 +0200 (WET)
From: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT ieva01 DOT lanet DOT lv>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
cc: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: -g vs -s
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.991031094044.2988I-100000@is>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.05.9911010946420.132160-100000@ieva01.lanet.lv>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk



On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> 
> On Thu, 28 Oct 1999, DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
> > Should a lack of -g (or -g*) imply -s in a gcc link?
> 
> Perhaps we should change the specs file to do this.
> 
> Shouldn't other switches, like -pg or -a, disable -s as well?
> 

Perhaps if somebody want's to specify command line option -s he/she
should do it in command line. I don't think that lack of -g (or -g*)
options should assume -s.

For example I specially building gcc without -g and I'm not running
strip on binaries as this:
	- does not bloat executables too much (however somebody else
          can think otherwise)  
	- provides possibility to use symify when gcc crashes due
	  to some reason. 

My earlier experience shows that it's later very hard to exactly reproduce 
the binary when something happens (for example there were some updates of 
binaries if gcc-2.8.1 and I don't have them all more). 

Andris