> John Myers posted <200602081850.05729.electronerd@...>,
> excerpted below, on Wed, 08 Feb 2006 18:49:54 -0800:
>> x86_64 does not require frame pointers for debugging, so
>> -fomit-frame-pointer is enabled with -O
> /Click/. THAT'S the reason I hadn't removed the potentially redundant
> -fomit-frame-pointer! I'd forgotten about that, but the manpage /does/
> mention that it's only enabled with -O<whatever> where it won't interfere
> with debugging, and I was unsure of whether that was the case on
> x86_64/amd64 or not, so I left it in. Knowing that it doesn't interfere
> with debugging on amd64, and is therefore enabled by -O<whatever>, I could
> probably remove the redundancy, now.
I'm having trouble with this "enable" word. To me it means to make able, or
to make possible, in the manner of opening a gate; but I often get the
distinct impression that it's being used forcefully, in the manner of being
pushed through the gate. /etc/init.d/numlock is a case in point - it says
it's enabled numlock when in fact it's set it.
So if the man page says that "it's only enabled with -O<whatever>" I infer
that it has no effect in the absence of -O? and therefore need only be
specified if -O? is present. Is that what you two mean? I suspect you mean
'forced' rather than 'enabled'.
I don't mean to appear pedantic, but I need help here :-(
email@example.com mailing list