From: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
Message-ID: <B0000107389@stargate.astr.lu.lv>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 12:05:23 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: -g vs -s
References: <Pine DOT A41 DOT 4 DOT 05 DOT 9911010946420 DOT 132160-100000 AT ieva01 DOT lanet DOT lv>
In-reply-to: <Pine.SUN.3.91.991102095358.19809B-100000@is>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12a)
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

On 2 Nov 99, at 9:54, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> 
> On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Andris Pavenis wrote:
> 
> > For example I specially building gcc without -g and I'm not running
> > strip on binaries as this:
> 
> That's why DJ said that people who need this can use -g0.  Won't it
> solve your problem in this case?
> 
> Alternatively, I think "strip --strip-debug" will remove debugging
> symbols added by -g, but leave enough to have meaningful traceback.
> 
> The automatic implication of -s is for those who don't know how to use
> command-line options, but do know how to ask questions.  Keeping the
> flood of those questions as low as we can is always a good idea,
> IMHO.

Of course we could assume -s when none of debugging options are 
specified. But I still don't think it's a good idea.

I don't think we'll be able to appease poeple who don't read docs and 
asks all questions immediatelly in newsgroup. They'll find what to ask 
anyway.

Andris