*-John Lapeyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, Craig Small wrote: | csmall>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | csmall>> I have recently created a debian/rules file with dh_make, it used "-g" for | csmall>> CXXFLAGS and "-g -O2" for CFLAGS. Is there any reason for not using -O2 for | csmall>> C++ compilation? Also do we really want debugging symbols in all the | csmall>> binaries? | csmall>> | csmall>> The C++ code compiled with -O2 seems to run well, so I don't think there's | csmall>> any compiler error for my setup (latest EGCS) at least... | csmall> | csmall>I don't think we need to include debugging code, I'm not sure where the -g | csmall>comes from in the CXXFLAGS as I thought I didn't set that anywhere. | csmall>scooter$ grep CXX /usr/lib/debhelper/dh_make/*/* | csmall>scooter$ | | Maybe I don't understand what you-all are talking about,... but | doesn't policy require compiling with -g and then stripping ? Last time I | read the policy manual, this was the case.
The policy manual recommends using -g, but there is no requirement, It won't show in the binary packages anyway. The reason for the recommendation is purely for the benefit of the maintainer. It will be easier to handle bugs if you have the symbols in some version. -- The only way tcsh "rocks" is when the rocks are attached to it's feet in the deepest part of a very deep lake. (Linus Torvalds) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [-: .elOle. :-] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
