Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes:
> uh, since you asked. I think the logic is that, at least with gcc, -g
> is never harmful since you can compile with -O and -g and then strip
> later if necessary.
Yeah, but ...
> Does it still default to -g with compilers that
> cannot do -O and -g together?
*Yes*. This is exactly the problem, really. One could reasonably
accuse the autoconf developers of FSF imperialism, because they have
seen to it that autoconf-based configure scripts will choose non-optimal
CFLAGS for non-gcc compilers. These same geeks would be screaming for
Microsoft's blood if Microsoft tried comparable tactics, so I don't have
a whole lot of sympathy.
(Side note: I've been overriding this particular autoconf-ism in
libjpeg's configure script since about 1995, so it's not like my
antipathy to it is a new subject.)
> Also, RMS happens to think all binaries should be installed with symbols. I
> think he's seen far too many emacs bug reports where the user was unable to
> provide any useful bug report because the binary was stripped.
I hear where he's coming from, believe me. But RPM builds generally strip
the binaries anyway, so autoconf isn't really accomplishing anything
with this that I can see. The mass market won't be providing stack
traces with their bug reports, whether the binary has symbols or not.
regards, tom lane
