On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Marc Weustink wrote:
> Michael Van Canneyt wrote: > > > > On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Peter Vreman wrote: > > > > > > > I suggested using Lazarus and the OP said he had great doubts because > > > > > the > > > > > size of the exe of his test program is 10 times the size of that > > > > > compiled by > > > > > Borland. > > > > Anyone who writes such texts doesn't look further than his nose. > > > > Experience shows they will just hit the next thing which makes Lazarus > > > > "unusable". Don't expect such idiots to become Lazarus users. > > > That is partly true. The problem is that setting -Xs doesn't help if there > > > is also -g in the > > > command line. So people think that the compiler strips the executable, but > > > in fact the binary is > > > unstripped. > > > > > > The easiest way to solve this is with a check in Lazarus. When the strip > > > checkbox is checked a > > > note shall be shown and asked to disable the debuginfo to make the option > > > work. > > > > > > The real solution is what a lot of people already asked for. Multiple > > > build modes like Visual C++ > > > also has. > > > > I think this is indeed the best, and should be not so hard to implement; At > > least the check would be already a hint to users. > > :) > > We thought about this some years ago. It is not as trivial as it seems. > Initial problem was to present all possible options to the user. > The tree based optiondialogs might help with this. I may be naive, of course, but: I think that the build mode should only (un)set a couple of options, and should leave the rest of the options intact. What is so difficult about this ? Michael. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel