| 1 |
Le lundi 24 juin 2013 à 12:05 +0300, Samuli Suominen a écrit : |
| 2 |
> On 24/06/13 11:54, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Le samedi 22 juin 2013 à 15:48 +0800, Dennis Lan (dlan) a écrit : |
| 4 |
> >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 6 |
> >>> Hash: SHA256 |
| 7 |
> >>> |
| 8 |
> >>> On 13/06/13 01:05 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 9 |
> >>>> Dnia 2013-06-13, o godz. 09:35:54 "Dennis Lan (dlan)" |
| 10 |
> >>>> <dennis.yxun@×××××.com> napisał(a): |
| 11 |
> >>>> |
| 12 |
> >>>>> also 4) app-admin/conserver 5) net-nds/ypbind 6) net-fs/samba 7) |
| 13 |
> >>>>> net-analyzer/scli 8) net-analyzer/traceproto 6) net-misc/siproxd |
| 14 |
> >>>>> |
| 15 |
> >>>>> use dmalloc but controlled under USE=debug |
| 16 |
> >>>> |
| 17 |
> >>>> Do those use USE=debug solely for dmalloc or does it imply other |
| 18 |
> >>>> stuff? Therefore: will it be possible to use USE=dmalloc in those |
| 19 |
> >>>> packages? |
| 20 |
> >> |
| 21 |
> >> HI mgorny, as I look into those ebuilds |
| 22 |
> >> all of them use the USE=debug flag for dmalloc only, not for other |
| 23 |
> >> debugging control |
| 24 |
> >> so, as your second question, of course it's possible to switch to USE=dmalloc |
| 25 |
> >> |
| 26 |
> >>>> |
| 27 |
> >>> |
| 28 |
> >>> and to follow up, if we assume that USE="debug" does more than just |
| 29 |
> >>> build the package against the dmalloc lib (which is likely), is there |
| 30 |
> >> |
| 31 |
> >> Yes, if this case exist.. then the separation would be good |
| 32 |
> >> |
| 33 |
> >> |
| 34 |
> >>> any particular benefit to USE="debug -dmalloc" ? Or USE="dmalloc |
| 35 |
> >>> - -debug" ? |
| 36 |
> >>> |
| 37 |
> >> |
| 38 |
> >> I'm not sure, probably the befefits would be that we can have more |
| 39 |
> >> accurate/explicit control, |
| 40 |
> >> USE="dmalloc" is for debugging memory usage stuff (allocation, free, |
| 41 |
> >> fence-post overwritten control) |
| 42 |
> >> and USE=debug for other stuff? |
| 43 |
> >> |
| 44 |
> >> This is a slightly improvement, but I'm also totally fine to keep |
| 45 |
> >> current state as it is.. no big deal |
| 46 |
> > |
| 47 |
> > Reading this thread, looks to me like these dmalloc USE should be moved |
| 48 |
> > to debug, unless it has no runtime impact on usual speed, etc. |
| 49 |
> > |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> It does. In most often cases building against dmalloc makes the |
| 52 |
> application/library completely unusable, and building it against dmalloc |
| 53 |
> is intended for the developer of the application. |
| 54 |
> Separated USE=dmalloc is the only sane way to approach it. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
To be clear, the justification of USE=dmalloc being separated from |
| 57 |
USE=debug is that it is so "intrusive" than anyone excepts a developer |
| 58 |
would find it too cumbersome to attempt to debug a problem with the |
| 59 |
application ? |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
If that is the case, maybe the USE flag description should mention that |
| 62 |
so it is not enabled lightly. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
-- |
| 65 |
Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@g.o> |
| 66 |
Gentoo |
Archives