httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Behlendorf <br...@organic.com>
Subject Re: binary build question
Date Mon, 20 Nov 1995 19:04:57 GMT
On Mon, 20 Nov 1995, Rob Hartill wrote:
> > What do people feel about this addition to the document about binary 
> > builds:
> > 
> > <B>Compiling:</B> The GNU C compiler (gcc) should be used whenever possible,
> > and with the -g flag set, so that we can ask people using binaries to provide
> > a backtrace if a coredump occurs. 
> 
> Hmmm, I get the impression that this statement would be aimed at people
> who don't really know their way around unix/C enough to run the debugger.
> It might just prove to be one more thing to confuse the hell out of
> a newbie.

Hmm, it's also probably reasonable to presume that someone without gcc is 
also likely to be without a gdb too :)  The performance penalty in that 
case might not be worth it then.. can I get one or two more opinions on 
the subject?

> Also, I think that if people have good compiler installations they
> shouldn't be persuaded to use gcc instead. By all means recommend gcc,
> but don't make it sound like it should be used in preference to the
> native CC. Since installing the HP compiler, I've stopped using gcc,
> and have fewer problems compiling applications.

If the debugging benefit is lost anyways, then people should be 
encouraged to compile using whatever they consider the "best" compiler 
for the platform, so I agree.  Unless of course the compiler contains 
licensing restrictions preventing its use on software to distribute for 
free...

	Brian

--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
brian@organic.com  brian@hyperreal.com  http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/


Mime
View raw message