Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Tom Lane writes: > > > What Peter was advocating in that thread was that we enable -g by > > default *when building with gcc*. I have no problem with that, since > > there is (allegedly) no performance penalty for -g with gcc. However, > > the actual present behavior of our configure script is to default to -g > > for every compiler, and I think that that is a big mistake. On most > > non-gcc compilers, -g disables optimizations, which is way too high a > > price to pay for production use. > > You do realize that as of now, -g is the default for gcc? Was that the > intent?
I was going to ask that myself. It seems strange to include -g by default --- we have --enable-debug, and that should control -g on all platforms. Also, -g bloats the executable, encouraging people/installers to run strip, which removes all symbols. Without -g and without strip, at least we get function names in the backtrace. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
