cvs.gedasymbols.org/archives/browse.cgi | search |
From: | Elliott Oti <e DOT oti AT stud DOT warande DOT ruu DOT nl> |
Newsgroups: | comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
Subject: | Re: DJGPP vs Borland C++ |
Date: | Sun, 02 Feb 1997 00:24:06 -0800 |
Organization: | Academic Computer Centre Utrecht, (ACCU) |
Lines: | 14 |
Message-ID: | <32F44F26.5569@stud.warande.ruu.nl> |
References: | <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 970127082529 DOT 7773G-100000 AT is> <5d124e$rqi$1 AT mack DOT rt66 DOT com> <32F47C06 DOT 62A8 AT cs DOT com> |
NNTP-Posting-Host: | warande1078.warande.ruu.nl |
Mime-Version: | 1.0 |
To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
DJ-Gateway: | from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
John M. Aldrich wrote: > > Brennan The Rev. Bas Underwood wrote: > > > > Also, don't compile with -O or -fomit-frame-pointer if you want a coherent > > stack traceback. > > The traceback under gcc is usually 100% reliable even when -O or -O2 is > used. Now if you start using -O3 and -fomit-frame-pointer, you could > start hosing the debugging info, but one of the features of gcc is that > debugging is still reliable even with optimizations. I may be mistaken, but methinks gcc does not stand the inclusion of both -fomit-frame-pointer and -g on the same command line. Debugging with O2 is possible.
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |