On Wednesday 16 of May 2012, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > On 05/16/2012 04:07 PM, Lubos Lunak wrote: > > Given that those differences you mention should be either irrelevant in > > practice or compiler bugs, even I, having rather fast build system, do > > not see -O2 worth using. > > ...yes, I mainly alluded to compiler bugs. But even those need to be > found somehow... > > Then again, my views might indeed be over-conservative here.
That makes you a special case :). It's ok to let you do what you want to do, but you're not the target to optimize for. > >> Re "unless explicitly told so"---how is one supposed to tell the build > >> system? > > > > I'm not the build expert here :). You can pass -O2 explicitly to > > CXXFLAGS, at least. It's rather a corner case to build with > > --enable-debug and -O2 at the same time. > > I think a root problem for confusion still is that we have those various > configure switches that lead to specific compiler switches in opaque > ways. I don't see why it should be so confusing: - non-debug/dbgutils (i.e. also the default) -> -O2 - symbols -> -g (probably even -g1, if this is actually meant for release builds with debug info sufficient mainly for backtraces) - debug/dbgutils -> -g, making sure it overrides -g1 from symbols - explicit C(XX)FLAGS overrides anything > How do other projects handle that? Never automatically add any > -g or -O switches, so requiring the user to always explicitly specify > CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS if he wants anything other than the compiler's default > -O0? AFAIK most projects default to release build and provide a way to switch to developer build. IIRC autotools by default uses -O2 as C(XX)FLAGS if it's not set, most autotools-based projects have some kind of --enable-debug, and CMake has built-in support for build type (debug,release,relwithdebinfo). -- Lubos Lunak l.lu...@suse.cz _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice