Unfortunately, there really is no middle ground. THe only option is to ask Apple to fix -g to mean -gstabs on OS X. I'm cross compiling from one version to another, so running an executable won't work. Looking at the three or four ways that you can specify a target version won't work (especially since at least in 10.4, you could change them without command line or environment variables).
Sorry, there's no middle ground - this patch broke a use case that used to work. I know you guys didn't know about -gstabs. That doesn't make it right to do evil things. Brian On Jul 27, 2010, at 3:47 PM, Ralph Castain wrote: > Can I offer a middle ground? I believe we have been burned enough with the -g > vs -gstabs situation on OSX that it merits defaulting "appropriately". So... > > Can we detect if gstabs is actually supported by the OS vs the compiler? > > If not, can we add logic that checks the OS target version and "does the > right thing"? > > My concern here is that our users are no more informed than Jeff or I were, > and will almost certainly specify -g when what they really mean is "I want a > debuggable executable". Unfortunately, as we all know, that isn't what you > get on OSX once you hit 10.4 and above. > > > > On Jul 27, 2010, at 3:29 PM, Barrett, Brian W wrote: > >> On Jul 27, 2010, at 3:13 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote: >> >>> On Jul 27, 2010, at 5:02 PM, Barrett, Brian W wrote: >>> >>>> Yes, but say I'm using a custom built version of gcc that doesn't do >>>> -gstabs quite right. Now you've screwed me. >>> >>> The configure test checks to see if -gstabs+ is accepted by the compiler. >> >> Yes, but acceptance and usefulness are not the same thing. >> >> If the TARGET_VERSION is 10.3, the compiler will accept -gstabs, but the >> executable won't be debugable on 10.3, because 10.3 didn't use gstabs. So I >> really, really want -g and you've just prevented me from doing what I want. >> That's not just bad, it's awful. >> >>>> I'm a firm believer that our configure script should do what the user >>>> says, as exactly as possible. Changing AC behavior a little bit is a gray >>>> area, but one I'm almost ok with (since AC_PROG_CC will add -g if CFLAGS >>>> is empty). >>> >>> We override that, though -- we take out that -g if CFLAGS was empty. >>> >>> I understand what you're saying, and in general I agree -- that we should >>> add as little as possible to what the user said. But I don't quite know >>> how to balance: >>> >>> * adding as few flags as possible >>> * making debugging symbols work for those of us who aren't familiar enough >>> with OSX to know that you need the special/secret -gstabs+ flag (and just >>> expect -g to be enough) >>> >>> I've been developing POSIX software on a Mac for several years (i.e., not >>> Mac-specific software, so I never dived into the details of Mac-specific >>> functionality) and fell into the 2nd category until about a week ago. >>> >>> Got any suggestions? >> >> Yes, don't cause problems - if the user specified -g, assume he meant -g. I >> understand what you're saying, but I'm against changing what the user >> specified because we know better. We usually don't, and in this case, there >> are known use cases where that's true. >> >> Brian >> >> -- >> Brian W. Barrett >> Dept. 1423: Scalable System Software >> Sandia National Laboratories >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> devel mailing list >> de...@open-mpi.org >> http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel > -- Brian W. Barrett Dept. 1423: Scalable System Software Sandia National Laboratories
