Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 10 Feb 2003 08:28:52 -0800 (PST) | From | devnetfs <> | Subject | Re: compiling kernel with debug and optimization |
| |
Thanks for you reply Keith :)
The reason I asked this question is -- Distro's like RH (i guess it holds for others too) DONT distribute kernels compiled with -g and I was wondering why?
Agreed about the compile-time+disk overhead, but that's ONE time affair. Analyzing a system-core-dump of a "-g" built kernel (using MCL's crash) is much easier and fruitful than otherwise.
so is it (just) the disk-space overhead that keeps distributions from NOT compiling with "-g" option?!
Thanks once again,
Regards, A.
--- Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au> wrote: > On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 03:11:51 -0800 (PST), > devnetfs <devnetfs@yahoo.com> wrote: > >Does compiling with -g option degrade performance? IMO it should > NOT. > > Compiling with -g slows down compilation and link, mainly because of > the extra debugging data that has to be copied around. -g > significantly increases disk usage. > > >If that's true, then why dont we compile kernels with both -g and > -O2 > >always? Also does using -g AND -O2 cause some optimizations to be > >missed out? > > With gcc, compiling with -g should have no effect on the kernel. One > of my occasional tests is to build vmlinux with and without -g, run > both through strip -g and compare the results. They should be > identical except for the build timestamp. >
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |