ENABLE_SYMBOLS=true does nothing
l.lunak at suse.cz
Wed Oct 31 06:34:43 PDT 2012
On Tuesday 30 of October 2012, Markus Mohrhard wrote:
> 2012/10/30 Kohei Yoshida <kohei.yoshida at gmail.com>:
> > On 10/30/2012 05:27 PM, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> >> make CFLAGS='-O -g' CXXFLAGS='-O -g' LDFLAGS=''
> >> If that doesn't work then I need to fix it.
> > Well, the idea is to *just* add -g to the flags without modifying any
> > other flags, and *just* remove -Wl,-S from LDFLAGS without removing other
> > flags. Changing other flags will change the generated binaries which may
> > affect reproducibility of certain bugs and/or performance profile of the
> > executable, and I'd like to avoid that (if we can).
Explicit CXXFLAGS etc. override only gbuild's options related to -O and -g,
nothing else, so if the default build goes with -Os, 'make CXXFLAGS=-Os'
doesn't make any difference, and 'make CXXFLAGS="-Os -g"' does what
ENABLE_SYMBOLS=true used to do. You can even pass CXXFLAGS=-Os to configure
if you want to be 100% sure.
And I have fixed the unwanted -Wl,-S if explicit CXXFLAGS is given, so this
should now work.
> I have to agree with Kohei. The enable symbol option was the best and
> only way to get a build that you could use to profile calc.
> To get useful profile runs it was necessary to compile with
> optimization because of the heavy template use inside calc (mdds, ...)
> Are there any plans to provide a similar option again?
I don't know about the 'only', but the important word there is 'was'. Do you
really need it, given what I wrote above? The --enable-symbols/debug/dbgutil
options were a source of repeated confusion, so when trying to put some sense
into them about what they do exactly, and with the story being
that --enable-symbols was only for packagers who explicitly give CXXFLAGS
anyway, part of the outcome was to make CXXFLAGS work directly,
drop --enable-symbols to reduce the confusion and turn it into the new
clearly named --enable-selective-debuginfo for the somewhat niche scenario.
I'd prefer to not bring it back because of a special use case that's already
easily doable as it is.
l.lunak at suse.cz
More information about the LibreOffice