[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: default -g ??!?
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
Re: default -g ??!? |
Date: |
Sun, 21 Nov 2010 09:58:15 +0900 |
MK <address@hidden> writes:
> Ah, it's because of GNU make:
No it's not.
> "By default, the Make rules should compile and link with -g, so that
> executable programs have debugging symbols. Users who don't mind being
> helpless can strip the executables later if they wish."
>
> Nice, flexible software it ain't.
That isn't anything GNU make does, it's a _recommendation_ for Makefile
writers.
Automake, accordingly follows that recommendation, since it's a
higher-level too than make, and tries to provide sensible defaults
(whereas GNU make has no default compiler options).
-Miles
--
Christian, n. One who follows the teachings of Christ so long as they are not
inconsistent with a life of sin.
- Re: reword documentation about symbol stripping (was: default -g ??!?), (continued)
- Re: reword documentation about symbol stripping (was: default -g ??!?), Karl Berry, 2010/11/21
- Re: reword documentation about symbol stripping, Miles Bader, 2010/11/21
- Re: reword documentation about symbol stripping, Karl Berry, 2010/11/22
- Re: reword documentation about symbol stripping, MK, 2010/11/23
- Re: default -g ??!?, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2010/11/21
- Re: default -g ??!?, Warren Young, 2010/11/22
- Re: default -g ??!?,
Miles Bader <=
Re: default -g ??!?, Russell Shaw, 2010/11/20