Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 09:53:28 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@trout.sri.MT.net> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, jkh@freefall.cdrom.com Cc: CVS-commiters@time.cdrom.com, cvs-lib@time.cdrom.com Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/stdlib strhash.c Message-ID: <199503281653.JAA13496@trout.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> "Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/stdlib strhash.c" (Mar 29, 2:23am)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >but it may be a compiler/strip issue. If the routine is declared > >static, it's symbol should never be seen in the symbol table. That > > It need not be, but gcc is a friendly compiler and puts useful info > about static functions in the symbol table. Our bsd.lib.mk strips > it from *.o but not from *.so. What good things come from the info from static functions in non-debuggable libraries? I think we should be stripping that info. from the shared .o's as well. > >feature is a function of the compiler, not of the linker/loader. > >(Except when it was compiled with debugging I believe, though I'm not > >positive on that account) > > It's essential to have static symbols for things compiled with -g and > useful to have them for things compiled without -g (e.g., /kernel). Agreed, but I think the usefulness of the symbols being in w/out -g is not enough to justify the symbol being in the default libraries. The libraries are the issue here, and not the kernel. Generally speaking most people don't want to debug binaries w/out the debugging information in (the poor unwashed never needed to use non-symbolic debuggers :), so I propose that we strip out the static symbols from the standard shared libraries. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199503281653.JAA13496>