Re: Open items

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Have gcc use -g, add --disable-debug, rename?
> > 
> > Personally I don't like the idea of this behavior defaulting differently
> > depending on which compiler you use.  I can see the practical arguments
> > for doing so, but it still rubs me the wrong way.  Can anyone offer new
> > arguments pro or con here?
> 
> You and I think don't like the inconsistency, while Jan likes the debug
> where ever possible (gcc).  There were a few others who liked the debug
> for gcc by default.
> 
> I think if folks are debugging, they probably should turn off
> optimization anyway to make sense of the output, and we are never going
> to ship without optimization.  What might be nice would be for
> --enable-debug to turn off optimization as well so people can actually
> make sense of the code in the debugger.
> 
> Basically, I don't like the debug because of:
> 
>     inconsistency with non-gcc
>     binary bloat
>     binary bloat encourages strip, which is really bad
> 
> Usually function names are enough for us to take a guess on the cause.

I think I have a compromise for --enable-debug:  How about if
--enable-debug removes optimization, adds -g (or -g3 for macro debugging
symbols in gcc), and maybe even enables casserts.  That way,
--enable-debug gives us a super-debuggable binary that we would never
ship by default.  Also, I can add a section to the release notes that
discourages people running strip.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073