On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 11:58:03AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > [ Ob: debian-ocaml-maint, look at the end of this mail ] > > tags 415194 + wontfix > thanks > > On Fri, Mar 16, 2007 at 06:55:27PM -0400, Ivan Jager wrote: > > The bytecode files are currently compiled without debugging support. > > This makes it hard to debug other code that might be called by it. Eg, a > > function passed to List.iter. > > In the Debian folklore of libraries (at large, not OCaml-specific) > that's a feature, not a bug. Indeed usually libraries do not contain > debugging symbols and where is deemed appropriate an extra -dbg library > package is built containing debugging information. > > > Since the standard libraries are compiled with debugging support it > > seems like it would make sense to do the same for others. Yes, it might > > be slightly slower, but anyone who cares about speed will probably be > > compiling native code anyways. > > In the specific case of OCaml libraries I think we never discussed the > issue and therefore I think the standard libraries just happen to be > compiled that way (probably because they are compiled that way upstream) > without any particular reason. > > So, at the moment I'm tagging this bug report as wontfix, but diverting > the more general question of "should we mandate inclusion of debugging > symbols in OCaml bytecode libraries"? to the debian-ocaml-maint mailing > list. On one hand we should be consistent with the general library > philosophy of not including debugging symbols in packages other than > -dbg. On the other it is true that a user willing to have performances > will use native code libraries, but is still true that native code > libraries are not available everywhere ...
One interesting question here, is what is the cost of adding those debugging symbols ? Is this cost a performance hit, or only a size increase ? Is anyone familiar with how debugging is implemented in ocaml ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
