Re: Call for port reports

I just tested gcc 2.95.3 on BSD/OS i386 and didn't see any change when
using -g3 vs -g in the size of the binaries.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neil Conway wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 21:29, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > configure --enable-debug will use -g for the compile, and with
> > optimization.
>
> I'm just curious: would there be any benefit to using -g3 when
> --enable-debug is specified and -g3 is supported by gcc? From the gcc
> man page:
>
> -glevel
>
> [...]
>
> Request debugging information and also use level to specify how
> much information. The default level is 2.
>
> Level 1 produces minimal information, enough for making backtraces
> in parts of the program that you don't plan to debug. This
> includes descriptions of functions and external variables, but no
> information about local variables and no line numbers.
>
> Level 3 includes extra information, such as all the macro defini-
> tions present in the program. Some debuggers support macro expan-
> sion when you use -g3.
>
> Note that in order to avoid confusion between DWARF1 debug level 2,
> and DWARF2, neither -gdwarf nor -gdwarf-2 accept a concatenated
> debug level. Instead use an additional -glevel option to change
> the debug level for DWARF1 or DWARF2.
>
> -Neil
>
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073