----- Original Message ----- > From: "Josh Carlson" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: "Fraser Adams" <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 1:38:04 PM > Subject: Re: REQEST FEEDBACK Re: How to test the performance quid c++ broker > > > > > > The only way I'd feel happy defaulting to a build with debug symbols > > or otherwise unstripped is if the build informed the users that this > > was the case. I truly believe that the most common use case for an > > average user is to want to download, build and enjoy and they should > > have a reasonable expectation of a build that is shipable to a mission > > critical operational environment without having to work out some > > (likely undocumented) magic incantation. > > > > It's not just about the performance, accidentally shipping operational > > code with debug symbols is bad practice IMHO. > > Why not just provide two downloads, one for debug, the other for > production and/or perf testing? > > -Josh > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
Qpid doesn't provide any binary downloads, only sources. The primary question is about what you get with cmake; make; ./qpidd versus with cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release; make; ./qpidd Getting casual evaluators to issue the second command line is more work and possibly a barrier to entry. This is true especially when users like OP get low performance numbers. The secondary question is whether Release builds produce debug symbols or not. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
