Re: --enable-debug vs --enable-symbols (Re: [Libreoffice-commits] .: 12 commits - config_host.mk.in configure.in filter/source oox/source sal/inc sc/source solenv/gbuild toolkit/source xmlhelp/source)

On Monday 21 of May 2012, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> On 05/21/2012 05:10 PM, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> > On Friday 18 of May 2012, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> > > Ah, you wanted --enable-dbgutil to disable -O2, the same way that
> > > --enable-debug does.  Had missed that point.  Hm, as I said, I prefer my
> > > --enable-dbgutil --disable-debug builds to be -O2.
> >
> >   What is the point of that combination? As far as I can tell
> > --enable-dbgutil is like --enable-debug but for changes that are BIC, so
> > only dbgutil without debug does not make much sense to me.
>
> I rarely use a debugger to step through code, so I prefer to avoid the
> --enable-debug settings that, AFAIU, are mainly there to aid in
> step-through debugging, but nevertheless cause potential deviation from
> a production build (like -O0, -fno-inline).

 But --enable-debug also enables asserts, logging and similar functionality 
that should be rather useful for developer builds, doesn't it?

> Turning this around:  What is it that you find problematic with
> --enable-dbgutil not affecting the default -O2?

 I'm not strongly opposed to it, it just doesn't make much sense to me that 
way. I see --enable-dbgutil as another, higher, level of --enable-debug, in 
fact I wonder why it is not simply something like --enable-debug=full. So if 
you insist, I don't mind that much, but I still don't understand why anyone 
would want dbgutil without debug (although, on the other hand, dbgutil not 
affecting e.g. -O2 would not matter much because of this anyway).

-- 
 Lubos Lunak
 l.lunak@suse.cz