Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 11:47:40 -0700 From: jay.krell@cornell.edu To: <questions@freebsd.org> Subject: debuggable ports? Message-ID: <005801c036d8$6a8aa1c0$8001a8c0@jayk3>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
So..I think one of the points of the (potential) open/free (yes, I know the definitions) software is not just having the source to read, but having the source to step into with a debugger. Is there any chance of an easy to use mode of the ports where everything keeps symbols? I tried "make install STRIP=" since it seemed that if I set it to empty on the command line, the use of install wouldn't strip the binaries. But the first thing I tried this with /usr/ports/lang/python15, got stripped anyway, possibly due to stuff in its "native" install, maybe this is just a bug in the Python port...no, I just tried debugging the built-not-installed binary and XFree86-4 too, no symbols. I guess these weren't built with -g. I think in Unix people tie the notions of having debug symbols and not being optimized?, but these are definitely seperateable, just that generating accurate symbols for optimized code is harder and Visual C++ for example does a poor job at it. The symbols can still easily be better than nothing. Is there any notion in Unix of puting symbols in a seperate file or a parallel directory tree? On Windows NT/2k, symbols are rarely in the .exe/.dll and sometimes not in the same directory. I admit this is highly debatable, splitting off the symbols leads to a huge problem of findinding/installing symbols, but usually when you build everything on the local machine it works with a minimum of problems. - Jay To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?005801c036d8$6a8aa1c0$8001a8c0>