On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 09:09:25PM +0200, Franco Fichtner wrote: > On Apr 27, 2013, at 7:36 PM, Ted Unangst <t...@tedunangst.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 08:10, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > >> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 01:08:06AM -0400, Eitan Adler wrote: > >> > >>> Adding static to internal function allows the compiler to better > >>> detect dead code (functions, variables, etc) and makes it easier for > >>> the compiler to optimize; e.g., since it knows a function will only > >>> called once it can inline code; or not output a symbol for a certain > >>> function. > >> > >> In general we don't lik this because it makes things harder to debug. > >> For libraries, yes, but for programs, no. > > > > Isn't that rule only for the kernel? ddb can only see global symbols, > > but gdb should work fine in userland. Certainly I can set breakpoints > > on static functions, even when compiled without -g. > > On backtrace(3) (which is a GNU thing, I know), static functions don't > show up with their respective names even though they are in the binary. > That's a tad annoying, but I am not aware of any other limitation. Can > someone please enlighten me?
Inlined functions are pretyy confusing in gdb. -Otto