Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 23:50:35 +0200 From: Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> To: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> Cc: Jake Smith <jake@avenue22.net>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Building with WITH_DEBUG (-g) in make.conf Message-ID: <504677AB.8040908@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CAF6rxgncRbkdKHniV5qRSxxt2OR35LomeyJObugRkBeAYMBV6A@mail.gmail.com> References: <53c5133d8fac4f4353eda0add82e2234@viper-webmail.viper.enta.net> <CAF6rxgncRbkdKHniV5qRSxxt2OR35LomeyJObugRkBeAYMBV6A@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2012-09-04 17:53, Eitan Adler wrote: > On 4 September 2012 05:26, Jake Smith <jake@avenue22.net> wrote: ... >> It got me thinking, is there any reason why it would be a bad idea to build >> all my ports with debug symbols from now on? > >> Are there any performance hits > > Yes. Code size grows and the flags may enable internal > debugging in the program itself. There's a difference between just using '-g', which should never change the behaviour of the program at runtime, and adding -DDEBUG or similar flags on the command line, which may or may not enable extra code, or even cause totally different code paths. What is not different, is that both -g and other debugging options will generally cause compiling and linking to take longer, since these stages will have to process the additional debug information. >> or security risks with this? > > no. You cannot know in general. If debug options enable a different code path, you might as well get a security problem with it for free. :) I have seen many debug printf's which could easily be exploited for buffer overruns, etc. However, only using '-g' should make no difference, indeed.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?504677AB.8040908>