| 1 |
On 24/06/13 11:54, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: |
| 2 |
> Le samedi 22 juin 2013 à 15:48 +0800, Dennis Lan (dlan) a écrit : |
| 3 |
>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 5 |
>>> Hash: SHA256 |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> On 13/06/13 01:05 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 8 |
>>>> Dnia 2013-06-13, o godz. 09:35:54 "Dennis Lan (dlan)" |
| 9 |
>>>> <dennis.yxun@×××××.com> napisał(a): |
| 10 |
>>>> |
| 11 |
>>>>> also 4) app-admin/conserver 5) net-nds/ypbind 6) net-fs/samba 7) |
| 12 |
>>>>> net-analyzer/scli 8) net-analyzer/traceproto 6) net-misc/siproxd |
| 13 |
>>>>> |
| 14 |
>>>>> use dmalloc but controlled under USE=debug |
| 15 |
>>>> |
| 16 |
>>>> Do those use USE=debug solely for dmalloc or does it imply other |
| 17 |
>>>> stuff? Therefore: will it be possible to use USE=dmalloc in those |
| 18 |
>>>> packages? |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> HI mgorny, as I look into those ebuilds |
| 21 |
>> all of them use the USE=debug flag for dmalloc only, not for other |
| 22 |
>> debugging control |
| 23 |
>> so, as your second question, of course it's possible to switch to USE=dmalloc |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
>>>> |
| 26 |
>>> |
| 27 |
>>> and to follow up, if we assume that USE="debug" does more than just |
| 28 |
>>> build the package against the dmalloc lib (which is likely), is there |
| 29 |
>> |
| 30 |
>> Yes, if this case exist.. then the separation would be good |
| 31 |
>> |
| 32 |
>> |
| 33 |
>>> any particular benefit to USE="debug -dmalloc" ? Or USE="dmalloc |
| 34 |
>>> - -debug" ? |
| 35 |
>>> |
| 36 |
>> |
| 37 |
>> I'm not sure, probably the befefits would be that we can have more |
| 38 |
>> accurate/explicit control, |
| 39 |
>> USE="dmalloc" is for debugging memory usage stuff (allocation, free, |
| 40 |
>> fence-post overwritten control) |
| 41 |
>> and USE=debug for other stuff? |
| 42 |
>> |
| 43 |
>> This is a slightly improvement, but I'm also totally fine to keep |
| 44 |
>> current state as it is.. no big deal |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> Reading this thread, looks to me like these dmalloc USE should be moved |
| 47 |
> to debug, unless it has no runtime impact on usual speed, etc. |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
It does. In most often cases building against dmalloc makes the |
| 51 |
application/library completely unusable, and building it against dmalloc |
| 52 |
is intended for the developer of the application. |
| 53 |
Separated USE=dmalloc is the only sane way to approach it. |
Archives