apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: 0.9.2-rc1 outstanding issues and win32 debug symbols
Date Wed, 19 Feb 2003 06:33:27 GMT
At 05:57 PM 2/18/2003, Branko Čibej wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>>What say we?  Does this sound like something worth researching?  Allen,
>>Brane and fellow Win32 hackers, should I proceed to figure out how to
>>structure such a binaries and symbols resource after I finish the 
>>apr 0.9.2 and httpd 2.0.45 releases?  Of course I will set aside those files,
>>.zip the .pdb's for posterity, roll the .dbg files into the installer (optional 
>>feature, of course.)  We might also trash the /map extraction from our
>>link steps, seeing as .dbg and .pdb files contain everything we could ever
>>wish to have.
>
>I think having the .dbg symbols should be quite enough for a normal
>httpd installation, so I think fixing the timestamp problem isn't that
>important for 0.9.2/2.0.45. 

100% agreed here - as long as you don't keep .dbg and .pdb files together,
it *will* pickup the mismatched ,pdb files for debugging the application.
One point I meant to make... can we make the .dbg simplified symbols
-p(rivate) such that they are even smaller?  With the full blown .pdb's
available to all who are interested, I don't see that as a shortcoming.

>If we can really do without the map files
>once the .dbg's are available, then I see nothing wrong with killing them.

I believe so... if others agree I'll make all this so before the release.

Bill 


Mime
View raw message