On 05/01/2012 12:54 AM, Bernd wrote:
There are build modes.
In fact I do understand that I can create build mode variables (macros)
that can be checked with {$if in the source code, but I don't know how
to use those to select different compile options (such as smart linking,
optimizing or
On 2012-05-02 11:31, Michael Schnell wrote:
On 05/01/2012 12:54 AM, Bernd wrote:
There are build modes.
In fact I do understand that I can create build mode variables
(macros) that can be checked with {$if in the source code, but I
don't know how to use those to select different compile
Am 30.04.2012 07:30 schrieb Richard Mace rich...@shrinkyourbills.co.uk:
On 30 April 2012 04:49, Alexander Klenin kle...@gmail.com wrote:
While I am personally ambivalent about the default state of -Xg switch,
I'd like to point out another use case where it matters:
compiling on Windows on
Alexander Klenin schrieb:
While I am personally ambivalent about the default state of -Xg switch,
I'd like to point out another use case where it matters:
compiling on Windows on slow machine with antivirus installed.
When I tried to persuade my students to switch to Lazarus from Delphi,
I've
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 16:56, Hans-Peter Diettrich
drdiettri...@aol.com wrote:
AV software tends to affect Delphi and its compiled projects, too.
Yes, but in recent years Delphi was included in safe lists of most
AV products.
It's not a good idea to use AV software on a Windows development
On 04/29/2012 12:09 PM, Martin wrote:
Then you have an outdated debug info file,
The release build could just delete this file (provided it's there
where a corresponding debug build would create it).
-Michael
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
On 04/30/2012 05:49 AM, Alexander Klenin wrote:
When I tried to persuade my students to switch to Lazarus from Delphi,
I've got many complaints about Lazarus being too slow.
About a third of these complaints were fixed by either excluding
Lazarus directory from AV's monitoring list, or turning
On Monday, April 30, 2012 09:37 Michael Schnell wrote:
On 04/29/2012 12:09 PM, Martin wrote:
Then you have an outdated debug info file,
The release build could just delete this file (provided it's there
where a corresponding debug build would create it).
-Michael
Please don't
Well, the problem is the size of the exe file. ;-)
When I am working on a project I usually want to generate debug
information for debugging.
But when I give the generated file to someone else I surely do not need
this information in the exe file anymore.
So why should I be forced to
2012/4/30 Richard Mace rich...@shrinkyourbills.co.uk:
This is interesting, I'd had never actually thought of a work flow like
this. So, would you have 2x different projects? 1 with as dubug and the 2nd
as release, or is there a better way of doing it?
There are build modes. There is a page in
Richard Mace schrieb:
... you can either not generated debug info at all or generate
external debug info (.dbg)...
Is there any reason why the -Xg flag is not on at default? What's the
disadvantage of using this flag? The reason I say is because there is
a massive reduction in
Am 28.04.2012 21:19, schrieb Richard Mace:
On 28 April 2012 08:21, Reinier Olislagers reinierolislag...@gmail.com
mailto:reinierolislag...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28-4-2012 8:57, Richard Mace wrote:
Hi,
What's the safest way of making the .exe smaller than default? Is it
Florian Klämpfl schrieb:
What's the problem with the .exe size when compiling with debug info? If
one compiles with debug settings, one usually wants to have the debug
info? If not, don't use debug settings.
Well, the problem is the size of the exe file. ;-)
When I am working on a project I
Am 29.04.2012 11:12, schrieb Jürgen Hestermann:
Florian Klämpfl schrieb:
What's the problem with the .exe size when compiling with debug info? If
one compiles with debug settings, one usually wants to have the debug
info? If not, don't use debug settings.
Well, the problem is the size of
On 29 April 2012 11:21, Florian Klämpfl flor...@freepascal.org wrote:
Using debug and release settings is something very basic when working on
software being deployed to others.
I fully agree. MSEide has project setting groups where you can define
debug and release settings. Lazarus IDE I
On 29/04/2012 09:56, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Richard Mace schrieb:
... you can either not generated debug info at all or generate
external debug info (.dbg)...
Is there any reason why the -Xg flag is not on at default? What's the
disadvantage of using this flag? The reason I say
On 29/04/2012 10:12, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Florian Klämpfl schrieb:
What's the problem with the .exe size when compiling with debug
info? If
one compiles with debug settings, one usually wants to have the debug
info? If not, don't use debug settings.
Well, the problem is the size of the
Martin schrieb:
On 29/04/2012 09:56, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Also, I guess it is more error prone. Compile with external debug, then
make changes, recompile but with release settings. Then you have an
outdated debug info file, and if you happen to run that in the debugger,
you get a lot of
On 29/04/2012 13:00, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
Martin schrieb:
On 29/04/2012 09:56, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Also, I guess it is more error prone. Compile with external debug,
then make changes, recompile but with release settings. Then you have
an outdated debug info file, and if you
Martin schrieb:
Is there any reason why the -Xg flag is not on at default? What's
the disadvantage of using this flag? The reason I say is because there
is a massive reduction in .exe size?
Yes, that's what I wondered about too.
Also, I guess it is more error prone. Compile with external
On 29/04/2012 16:54, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Martin schrieb:
Is there any reason why the -Xg flag is not on at default? What's
the disadvantage of using this flag? The reason I say is because there
is a massive reduction in .exe size?
Yes, that's what I wondered about too.
Also, I guess
While I am personally ambivalent about the default state of -Xg switch,
I'd like to point out another use case where it matters:
compiling on Windows on slow machine with antivirus installed.
When I tried to persuade my students to switch to Lazarus from Delphi,
I've got many complaints about
On 30 April 2012 04:49, Alexander Klenin kle...@gmail.com wrote:
While I am personally ambivalent about the default state of -Xg switch,
I'd like to point out another use case where it matters:
compiling on Windows on slow machine with antivirus installed.
When I tried to persuade my
On 28-4-2012 8:57, Richard Mace wrote:
Hi,
What's the safest way of making the .exe smaller than default? Is it
just to strip debug info?
How would I do this?
Perhaps this will give you some ideas?
http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Size_Matters#Incorrect_compiler_configuration
... you can
On 28 April 2012 08:21, Reinier Olislagers reinierolislag...@gmail.comwrote:
On 28-4-2012 8:57, Richard Mace wrote:
Hi,
What's the safest way of making the .exe smaller than default? Is it
just to strip debug info?
How would I do this?
Perhaps this will give you some ideas?
On 28.04.2012 08:57, Richard Mace wrote:
Hi,
What's the safest way of making the .exe smaller than default? Is it
just to strip debug info?
How would I do this?
Thanks in advance
Richard
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
On 28.04.2012 08:57, Richard Mace wrote:
Hi,
What's the safest way of making the .exe smaller than default? Is it
just to strip debug info?
How would I do this?
Thanks in advance
Richard
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
On 28 April 2012 11:03, John Landmesser joh...@online.de wrote:
On 28.04.2012 08:57, Richard Mace wrote:
Hi,
What's the safest way of making the .exe smaller than default? Is it just
to strip debug info?
How would I do this?
Thanks in advance
Richard
--
On 28 April 2012 08:21, Reinier Olislagers reinierolislag...@gmail.comwrote:
On 28-4-2012 8:57, Richard Mace wrote:
Hi,
What's the safest way of making the .exe smaller than default? Is it
just to strip debug info?
How would I do this?
Perhaps this will give you some ideas?
29 matches
Mail list logo
