Robert Shearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "make install && make install_debuginfo" will install the debugging
> info both embedded and separate.
> "make install_debuginfo && make install" will only install the separate.
> This is one of the quirks I would like some feedback on and no doubt
> s
> It is already there. I added support for it a few months ago.
I've did debug packages for mdk the day after AJ commited your patch, but is
there any easy way I can test to see if the debug info works with winedbg?
Ivan.
Libero ADSL:
Mike Hearn wrote:
On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 12:33 -0600, Robert Shearman wrote:
I wasn't very clear about what I wanted with the makefiles. Basically,
this will be an optional post-build step. The way I am leaning towards
at the moment is that "make install" will install with full debugging
infor
On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 12:33 -0600, Robert Shearman wrote:
> It is already there. I added support for it a few months ago.
Oops, sorry.
> I wasn't very clear about what I wanted with the makefiles. Basically,
> this will be an optional post-build step. The way I am leaning towards
> at the momen
Mike Hearn wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 11:24:01 -0600, Robert Shearman wrote:
I want to add support generating .debug files that are linked from .so
files so that we can have one set of binaries, no matter whether a
person is a developer or end-user and yet have no additional disk space
or ban
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 11:24:01 -0600, Robert Shearman wrote:
> I want to add support generating .debug files that are linked from .so
> files so that we can have one set of binaries, no matter whether a
> person is a developer or end-user and yet have no additional disk space
> or bandwidth costs.
Hi,
I want to add support generating .debug files that are linked from .so
files so that we can have one set of binaries, no matter whether a
person is a developer or end-user and yet have no additional disk space
or bandwidth costs.
This is really just a RFC about changes I've made to the DLL m
