On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf <mar...@trippelsdorf.de> wrote: > On 2012.09.18 at 06:58 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 1:49 AM, Richard Guenther >> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> wrote: >> >> OK for mainline? >> > >> > Hm. Can you please be that verbose only for ENABLE_CHECKING compilers? >> >> That would be easy enough but I don't think it's a good idea. The >> time when this can help the most is when we get a bug report from >> somebody who doesn't know how to or doesn't want to share the input >> file. The backtrace can show us whether this is a known ICE. But >> that will only work if we actually dump the backtrace for a release >> compiler. >> >> It's not like this is something that happens in an ordinary >> compilation. I think verbosity is just fine here. >> >> > Or at least provide a way to disable the backtrace printing with a >> > configure >> > switch. >> >> Again, I don't think this is necessary or appropriate. I could add a >> command line option to disable the backtrace if you think that is >> important, but I think it's important that the default be to print it. > > If you use "make install-strip" to install, then libbacktrace will have > been build in vain. At least for this case a way to disable libbacktrace > should be available.
Indeed - we ship binaries with stripped debug info, usually not installed. libbacktrace will only produce useless garbage then. So I want a way to disable it (at least by default) at configure time. Richard. > -- > Markus
