[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
reword documentation about symbol stripping (was: default -g ??!?)
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
reword documentation about symbol stripping (was: default -g ??!?) |
Date: |
Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:44:10 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
[ adding bug-standards; this thread is from
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake/2010-11/msg00114.html ]
* MK wrote on Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 04:47:48PM CET:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 10:07:31 +0900 Miles Bader wrote:
> >
> > Indeed, it's often a good idea to do the research _before_ posting
> > flames and rants...
>
> Yes. On the other hand, in my defence, GNU's online docs for make:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html
>
> which I sited earlier after searching for "debugging symbols", do not
> make a mature attempt to explain the issue at all and instead just use
> inflammatory phrases like "Users who don't mind being helpless can
> strip the executables later if they wish," and "Devil-may-care users
> can use the install-strip target to do that". No further
> explanation. Is this how I'm supposed to learn about Coding
> Standards? Via jokes and threats of some inexplicable bogey-man?
Oh well. This thread has been so noisy and unproductive, maybe we
should seize the opportunity to take a bit of good away from it.
Karl, what do you think about this rewording (against the gnulib copy
of make-stds.texi) that makes the text slightly less subjective and
slightly less tongue-in-cheek?
May we have a real name please to credit in the ChangeLog entry?
Thanks,
Ralf
2010-11-21 Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden>
* doc/make-stds.texi (Standard Targets): Reword recommendations
about debug symbols and stripping executables.
Suggested by MK <address@hidden>.
diff --git a/doc/make-stds.texi b/doc/make-stds.texi
index 6c83b5d..61e90b6 100644
--- a/doc/make-stds.texi
+++ b/doc/make-stds.texi
@@ -715,8 +715,8 @@ documentation format) files should be made only when
explicitly asked
for.
By default, the Make rules should compile and link with @samp{-g}, so
-that executable programs have debugging symbols. Users who don't mind
-being helpless can strip the executables later if they wish.
+that executable programs have debugging symbols. Executables can be
+stripped later if necessary.
@item install
Compile the program and copy the executables, libraries, and so on to
@@ -724,8 +724,11 @@ the file names where they should reside for actual use.
If there is a
simple test to verify that a program is properly installed, this target
should run that test.
-Do not strip executables when installing them. Devil-may-care users can
-use the @code{install-strip} target to do that.
+Do not strip executables when installing them. This helps eventual
+debugging that may be needed later, and nowadays disk space is cheap
+and dynamic loaders typically ensure debug sections are not loaded during
+normal execution. Users that need stripped binaries may invoke the
address@hidden target to do that.
If possible, write the @code{install} target rule so that it does not
modify anything in the directory where the program was built, provided
- Re: default -g ??!?, (continued)
- Re: default -g ??!?, Roger Leigh, 2010/11/20
- Re: default -g ??!?, MK, 2010/11/20
- Re: default -g ??!?, Bob Friesenhahn, 2010/11/20
- Re: default -g ??!?, MK, 2010/11/20
- Re: default -g ??!?, Miles Bader, 2010/11/20
- Re: default -g ??!?, MK, 2010/11/21
- reword documentation about symbol stripping (was: default -g ??!?),
Ralf Wildenhues <=
- Re: reword documentation about symbol stripping (was: default -g ??!?), MK, 2010/11/21
- Re: reword documentation about symbol stripping, John Calcote, 2010/11/21
- Re: reword documentation about symbol stripping, Miles Bader, 2010/11/21
- Re: reword documentation about symbol stripping, John Calcote, 2010/11/21
- 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