| 1 |
Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> John Myers posted <200602081850.05729.electronerd@×××××××××××××.net>, |
| 3 |
> excerpted below, on Wed, 08 Feb 2006 18:49:54 -0800: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> x86_64 does not require frame pointers for debugging, so |
| 6 |
>> -fomit-frame-pointer is enabled with -O |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> /Click/. THAT'S the reason I hadn't removed the potentially redundant |
| 9 |
> -fomit-frame-pointer! I'd forgotten about that, but the manpage /does/ |
| 10 |
> mention that it's only enabled with -O<whatever> where it won't interfere |
| 11 |
> with debugging, and I was unsure of whether that was the case on |
| 12 |
> x86_64/amd64 or not, so I left it in. Knowing that it doesn't interfere |
| 13 |
> with debugging on amd64, and is therefore enabled by -O<whatever>, I could |
| 14 |
> probably remove the redundancy, now. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I'm having trouble with this "enable" word. To me it means to make able, or |
| 17 |
to make possible, in the manner of opening a gate; but I often get the |
| 18 |
distinct impression that it's being used forcefully, in the manner of being |
| 19 |
pushed through the gate. /etc/init.d/numlock is a case in point - it says |
| 20 |
it's enabled numlock when in fact it's set it. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
So if the man page says that "it's only enabled with -O<whatever>" I infer |
| 23 |
that it has no effect in the absence of -O? and therefore need only be |
| 24 |
specified if -O? is present. Is that what you two mean? I suspect you mean |
| 25 |
'forced' rather than 'enabled'. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I don't mean to appear pedantic, but I need help here :-( |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Rgds |
| 31 |
Peter. |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
Archives