Re: Call for port reports

I just tested gcc 2.95.3 on BSD/OS i386 and didn't see any change when
using -g3 vs -g in the size of the binaries.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neil Conway wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 21:29, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > configure --enable-debug will use -g for the compile, and with
> > optimization.
> 
> I'm just curious: would there be any benefit to using -g3 when
> --enable-debug is specified and -g3 is supported by gcc? From the gcc
> man page:
> 
>    -glevel
> 
> [...]
> 
>    Request debugging information and also use level to specify how
>    much information.  The default level is 2.
> 
>    Level 1 produces minimal information, enough for making backtraces
>    in parts of the program that you don't plan to debug.  This
>    includes descriptions of functions and external variables, but no
>    information about local variables and no line numbers.
> 
>    Level 3 includes extra information, such as all the macro defini-
>    tions present in the program.  Some debuggers support macro expan-
>    sion when you use -g3.
> 
>    Note that in order to avoid confusion between DWARF1 debug level 2,
>    and DWARF2, neither -gdwarf nor -gdwarf-2 accept a concatenated
>    debug level.  Instead use an additional -glevel option to change
>    the debug level for DWARF1 or DWARF2.
> 
> -Neil
> 
> 

--  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