Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 11:03:50 +0200 (IST) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: DJ Delorie cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: config/mh-djgpp in Cygnus tree In-Reply-To: <200101022142.QAA11774@envy.delorie.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, DJ Delorie wrote: > > It may *look* like one, but it may just as well be an essential > > piece to the DJGPP port of the program that just didn't get > > commented understandibly. IIRC, you can not build GCC with -g > > active. At least at the time of DJGPP 1.x, when DJ says this change > > was conceived, that was the case. You would hit the hard limit of > > 64K symbols in a COFF object file, otherwise. A debuggable GCC needs > > '-gstabs', instead. > > Doh! I knew there was something about that... > > Well, I took it out. If anyone wants to submit a version with a > better comment, I'll humbly put it back in. I think the gravity of not using -g is much less these days, since Binutils 2.8 and later don't treat the line info overflow as a fatal problem. So I'd expect that a GCC build with -g _is_ possible. Note that GDB is compiled with -g by default, even though mh-djgpp says otherwise. I get line number overflow in GDB as well, but the executable runs and is debuggable.