[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Berry) wrote: > I'm sure this is not 100% accurate (in either direction), but it's one > hint, anyway.
I was also going to give this answer, but did a quick test first: $ gcc -g -c -o hello_debug.o hello.c $ gcc -c -o hello_no_debug.o hello.c $ ls -al *.o -rw-r--r-- 1 henca users 9056 May 22 08:24 hello_debug.o -rw-r--r-- 1 henca users 776 May 22 08:25 hello_no_debug.o $ file *.o hello_debug.o: ELF 32-bit LSB relocatable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), not stripped hello_no_debug.o: ELF 32-bit LSB relocatable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), not stripped $ strip *.o $ ls -al *.o -rw-r--r-- 1 henca users 496 May 22 08:25 hello_debug.o -rw-r--r-- 1 henca users 496 May 22 08:25 hello_no_debug.o $ file *.o hello_debug.o: ELF 32-bit LSB relocatable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), stripped hello_no_debug.o: ELF 32-bit LSB relocatable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), stripped So, there is more than the debug information that gets stripped out from an object file and being "not stripped" is no guarantee for containing debug information. Unfortunately I have no better answer. regards Henrik -- The address in the header is only to prevent spam. My real address is: hc1(at)poolhem.se Examples of addresses which go to spammers: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
