On sexta-feira, 14 de setembro de 2012 18.27.31, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > well, i disagree. > if you want backtraces, not stripping some minor symbol tables doesn't > buy you much; you need to force proper debug info on anyway. > i also don't think that "end users" never build qt themselves. all kinds > of non-desktop builds require manual building, and commercial users > regularly customize their builds. think a bit outside the linux distro > box, please.
I want to get a minimal backtrace from a crashing application in a production
setting. Since we use hidden visibility by default in most of our classes (the
internal ones), without debug symbols those show up only as ??.
I don't want to do debugging. I don't even need line numbers. I just want to
have an idea where things are going.
> and, fwiw, i couldn't care less for the unsubstantiated complaints of
> packagers. they are the *last* consumers to think about - they can be
> expected to understand their job, and be willing to spend a few minutes
> on a package's nuances. it's not rocket science.
I disagree and I think we ought to think more about them. Especially since,
without my fix, they had to patch Qt.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
Intel Sweden AB - Registration Number: 556189-6027
Knarrarnäsgatan 15, 164 40 Kista, Stockholm, Sweden
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
