| 1 |
begin quote |
| 2 |
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 15:48:00 -0300 |
| 3 |
Rufiao <rufiao@×××.net> wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I haven't build a whole system using that yet. Any packages break |
| 7 |
> specifically because of this flag? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Per Wigren [Tue 18-Jun-2002 18:41 GMT+0200]: |
| 10 |
> > -fomit-frame-pointer often gives a noticable speedup also... |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I will personally slay the person to include this in the default system, |
| 15 |
as -any- bug found at a higher level in the chain will be rendered |
| 16 |
completely undebuggable if glibc or other library that it links uses |
| 17 |
this, The initial speedup is trivial for things such as the basesystem, |
| 18 |
and to simply ignore all bugreports from a person who uses it is quite a |
| 19 |
valid proposition as far as I'm concerned. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Why the strong feelings about it? bugreports are quite vital to our QA |
| 22 |
and future survival, and to our users if they ever want to try anything |
| 23 |
even remotely unstable, or development (face it, quite a few do), and |
| 24 |
the amount of trouble this flag generates further down the line is |
| 25 |
immense. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Yes, you can leave it as a suggestion if you wish, though it should be |
| 28 |
noted that "this will break all debugging and render all bugreports |
| 29 |
useless, as well as it may introduce odd crashes which will not be |
| 30 |
traceable" , But it should -not- be thought of as an default |
| 31 |
alternative. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Better for defaults would be -fno-exceptions for C++ and C code, |
| 34 |
although this also breaks code, but more noticable in most cases. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
//Spider |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
begin .signature |
| 41 |
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! |
| 42 |
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. |
| 43 |
end |
Archives