Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Tom Lane writes:
>>
>> > What Peter was advocating in that thread was that we enable -g by
>> > default *when building with gcc*. I have no problem with that, since
>> > there is (allegedly) no performance penalty for -g with gcc. However,
>> > the actual present behavior of our configure script is to default to -g
>> > for every compiler, and I think that that is a big mistake. On most
>> > non-gcc compilers, -g disables optimizations, which is way too high a
>> > price to pay for production use.
>>
>> You do realize that as of now, -g is the default for gcc? Was that the
>> intent?
>
> I was going to ask that myself. It seems strange to include -g by default ---
> we have --enable-debug, and that should control -g on all platforms.
Could it be that there ought to be a difference between the defaults of
a devel CVS tree, a BETA tarball and a final "production" release?
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
