From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?windows-1252?Q?Simon_K=E5gstr=F6m?= Subject: Re: [PATCH] mk: add support for gdb debug info generation Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 12:08:16 +0200 Message-ID: <55893010.9030304@netinsight.net> References: <1434749378-8578-1-git-send-email-cchemparathy@ezchip.com> <5587BFA7.2000206@netinsight.net> <55890D3A.109@intel.com> <28151366.mYixNO6eb8@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Thomas Monjalon , "Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio" Return-path: Received: from ernst.netinsight.se (ernst.netinsight.se [194.16.221.21]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 25389C5A6 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 12:08:25 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <28151366.mYixNO6eb8@xps13> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 2015-06-23 09:47, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2015-06-23 08:39, Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio: >> I guess you could argue that, to always build with debug info then strip >> it down. >> You would need another flag to strip debug info for production, or leave >> it for debugging. >> >> In my opinion is not worth it, but it you feel strongly about it you can >> submit patches and >> let the community decide. > > I think stripping is a packaging responsibility. > It would be a good idea to always provide debugging symbols. Yes, I think this would be the best way too, and should be pretty much standard procedure. DPDK is anyhow just a library - stripping should be up to the application / packaging to do. // Simon