Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 15:40:45 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Lyle <lpak1 AT ccds DOT cc DOT monash DOT edu>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Debugging Information && SIGSEGV faults
In-Reply-To: <33F3CC58.FF6BC872@NO_SPAMccds.cc.monash.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970819153953.21250B-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Fri, 15 Aug 1997, Lyle wrote:

> It's just that i don't ahve time - and i would really like to compile
> the program in 32 bit. However, i can't waste time trying to debug it
> using 'primitive' methods.

I thought you were in a hurry to get your program working, weren't
you?  If so, what difference does it make how ``primitive'' the
methods are if they let you achieve your goals?

For me, there's no ``primitive'' and ``advanced'' tools; there are
only tools that are right for a certain job and there are tools which
are wrong.  If a certain technique gets the job done quickly, it is
the right tool.

But it's your call, the above is only my own opinion.

> I appreciate your suggestions, however in my
> situtation they are unrealistic. I might give the pgcc a go and see what
> happens?

I think this would get you into more trouble, that's why I suggested
alternative ways.  I have built gcc and used beta-quality programs
enough times to know that this is no way to quickly make a buggy
program work.