Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 02:46:39PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Hi, >> >> what's the correct way to handle debugging information in MinGW packages? >> >> Currently, mingw32-nsis builds everything with debugging information (due to >> the debian-debug-opt patch), even the MinGW parts, but the MinGW debugging >> information is not extracted, so it's included within the binaries. This is >> particularly annoying for NSIS installers as it bloats the installer stubs. >> For example, the lzma_solid stub is 210185 bytes, running a MinGW strip on >> it reduces it to 55296 bytes. >> >> Do we really want debugging information in the MinGW stuff even if it can't >> be extracted into separate -debuginfo? Or should the MinGW portions of NSIS >> be built without -g instead? Should the same policy apply to everything or >> should NSIS be special? (I can see why a developer would want to have >> debugging information for a library, but for an installer?) > > Last time we tried, a cross compiled GDB crashed & burned. So unless someone > can demonstrate a usuable WINE/Win32 debugger that can use the gcc generated > debugging info, then we should not build with -g, nor create -debuginfo > sub-RPMs.
the question still apply (i gdb will work) do we want to provide debuginfo for crosscompiled binaries? i don't know what's the good answer:-( -- Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!" _______________________________________________ fedora-mingw mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-mingw
