Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 09:54:26 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT ieva01 DOT lanet DOT lv>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: -g vs -s
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A41.4.05.9911010946420.132160-100000@ieva01.lanet.lv>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.991102095358.19809B-100000@is>
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 Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Andris Pavenis wrote:

> For example I specially building gcc without -g and I'm not running
> strip on binaries as this:

That's why DJ said that people who need this can use -g0.  Won't it
solve your problem in this case?

Alternatively, I think "strip --strip-debug" will remove debugging
symbols added by -g, but leave enough to have meaningful traceback.

The automatic implication of -s is for those who don't know how to use
command-line options, but do know how to ask questions.  Keeping the
flood of those questions as low as we can is always a good idea,
IMHO.