Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 09:41:36 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: -g vs -s
In-Reply-To: <199910282001.QAA26264@envy.delorie.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.991031094044.2988I-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Thu, 28 Oct 1999, DJ Delorie wrote:

> Should a lack of -g (or -g*) imply -s in a gcc link?

Perhaps we should change the specs file to do this.

Shouldn't other switches, like -pg or -a, disable -s as well?