"Geoffrey Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > >
> > >
> > > no not really, we didn't write the software , we only debug the
> > distro, we
> > > can patch little bugs and problems to make tiw ork better but
> > whne it comes
> > > to *big big* bugs youd' better rebuild, debug and email the author.
> >
> > I think the point here is that we could not strip the debuging symbol from
> > binary for ease of 'general' debuging.
> >
>
>
> well true if you strip teh symbols away then it would be hard to run a
> debugger and get something useful.
>
>
> > I want to be able to trace a bug and report it to the author.
> > Maybe it's also why cooker is there.
> >
>
> by how much do you think would it enlarge a general cooker install then if
> it was implemented?
It completly depend on the size of the program and the way it was
compiled.
generally, by striping a binary,
you divide by 2 or 3 the actual size of a program.
Also, 'on cooker', binary should be compiled with :
-O0 :
By compiling binary with *any* optimisations flags,
you take the risk of having wrong gcc report ( generally,
-O2 work, but it do not in a few cases ) .
-fno-inline :
Because when the programmer manually specify inline,
the code will be inlined, even if you say gcc to not
perform any optimisations.
Compiling with theses flags have another advantage :
it can greatly improve compilation time... ( and again, only for cooker ).
--
-- Yoann http://www.mandrakesoft.com/~yoann/
An engineer from NVidia, while asking him to release cards specs said :
"Actually, we do write our drivers without documentation."
