From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Mar 28 15:21:38 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from bubba.whistle.com (s205m7.whistle.com [207.76.205.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A15A152D9 for ; Sun, 28 Mar 1999 15:21:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from archie@whistle.com) Received: (from archie@localhost) by bubba.whistle.com (8.9.2/8.9.2) id PAA14589; Sun, 28 Mar 1999 15:21:11 -0800 (PST) From: Archie Cobbs Message-Id: <199903282321.PAA14589@bubba.whistle.com> Subject: Re: Debug kernel by default? (was: Taking panic dumps (was: 3.1-S TABLE dies on 40+ connects (resolved))) In-Reply-To: from "paul@originative.co.uk" at "Mar 28, 99 11:54:27 pm" To: paul@originative.co.uk Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 15:21:11 -0800 (PST) Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, grog@lemis.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL38 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG paul@originative.co.uk writes: > > Greg Lehey writes: > > > In that connection, any comments about changing the default way of > > > building a kernel to create a debug kernel and a stripped copy, and > > > install the stripped copy? It would require about 10 MB more storage > > > and a little more time to build the kernel, but since kgdb is useless > > > without the debug symbols, and disk space is cheap, it seems to me > > > that it would be worthwhile. > > > > Building debug kernels takes up a lot more space, which some people > > may not have. > > > > How about simply fixing 'config -g' to generate a Makefile that > > does the extra step of copying and stripping the kernel and installing > > the stripped version kernel.strip instead of kernel? > > Unless I misunderstood Greg I think the intention is to always build a debug > kernel without the user really realising that is happening so that when they > have a panic they've got the infrastructure there to let the "support team" > track down the problem. [ trimmimg freebsd-net ] Right.. I'm just worried that certain people may object to changing the behavior to do this automatically (not me by the way). > I think that's a good idea, switch the options around so that by default a > debug kernel is built and provide an option to build a "production" kernel. > I don't think a kernel built with -g is going to be significantly slower or > bigger than a standard kernel once stripped and those after maximum > performance should know how to go about getting it. This is just doing my steps #1 and #2 at the same time, ie: Step #1: Fix config -g makefile Step #2: Make config assume -g by default My point was just that doing these steps one at a time would be more digestable to the world. Just trying to take the conservative approach (maybe I've been conditioned :-) > The extra disk space for the build would be only problem but given the size > of the code base these days most people who have source will have enough > spare disk to build a debug kernel. Yes, that's your assumption isn't it... :-) -Archie ___________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http://www.whistle.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message