[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: reword documentation about symbol stripping
From: |
Karl Berry |
Subject: |
Re: reword documentation about symbol stripping |
Date: |
Tue, 23 Nov 2010 01:42:07 GMT |
it addresses an issue that
some people may not know about, so maybe it would be good to briefly
explain further?
I agree, thanks. I changed the text to look like this:
By default, the Make rules should compile and link with @samp{-g}, so
that executable programs have debugging symbols. Otherwise, you are
essentially helpless in the face of a crash, and it is often far from
easy to reproduce with a fresh build.
Best,
karl
- Re: default -g ??!?, (continued)
- Re: default -g ??!?, MK, 2010/11/20
- Re: default -g ??!?, Miles Bader, 2010/11/20
- Re: default -g ??!?, MK, 2010/11/21
- reword documentation about symbol stripping (was: default -g ??!?), Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/11/21
- Re: reword documentation about symbol stripping (was: default -g ??!?), MK, 2010/11/21
- Re: reword documentation about symbol stripping, John Calcote, 2010/11/21
- Re: reword documentation about symbol stripping, Miles Bader, 2010/11/21
- Re: reword documentation about symbol stripping, John Calcote, 2010/11/21
- Re: reword documentation about symbol stripping (was: default -g ??!?), Karl Berry, 2010/11/21
- Re: reword documentation about symbol stripping, Miles Bader, 2010/11/21
- Re: reword documentation about symbol stripping,
Karl Berry <=
- Re: reword documentation about symbol stripping, MK, 2010/11/23
- Re: default -g ??!?, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2010/11/21
- Re: default -g ??!?, Warren Young, 2010/11/22
- Re: default -g ??!?, Miles Bader, 2010/11/20
Re: default -g ??!?, Russell Shaw, 2010/11/20