On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 14:47 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 09:25:34PM +1000, skaller wrote:
> > Is it still possible to use the debugger and get a backtrace etc
> > if there are no debugging symbols in these libraries?
>
> Of course not, but this is not the point. Indeed, the same argument can
> be made for C libraries, but for C libraries the default is not to ship
> debugging symbols, why OCaml should make a difference from this point of
> view?
A strong form of my previous statement is:
"bytecode has no use *other* than debugging"
"I have native code compiler, why would I bother with
bytecode except to work around the fact the Ocaml debugger
doesn't work with native code?"
Of course, I don't believe such a strong statement is correct,
it isn't representative of what other people do, and it isn't
an argument for or against including debugging symbols, so much
as a data point for your consideration.
The situation IS different to C because there is a coupling:
bytecode <--> debugging
native code <---> performance
which doesn't exist in C. For example I might build two versions
of an executable:
A) the production version, native code, -unsafe, fast
B) the debug version, bytecode, safe
and if I have problems with (A) then try (B). Such a model
favours bytecode with debug symbols .. there's no use
in that model for bytecode without debug symbols.
But still not an argument here -- just a data point for consideration.
--
John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net>
Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
