Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 08:58:57 -0500 From: Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Trond_Endrest=F8l?= <Trond.Endrestol@fagskolen.gjovik.no> Cc: FreeBSD Questions List <questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: size of debug symbols Message-ID: <23666.41761.759191.463104@jerusalem.litteratus.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.21.9999.1902240850100.1450@mail.fig.ol.no> References: <46040D79-BA05-43F5-9213-67094355B68A@cretaforce.gr> <23664.7723.844456.222198@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <alpine.BSF.2.21.9999.1902231625350.1450@mail.fig.ol.no> <23665.37618.281478.64929@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <alpine.BSF.2.21.9999.1902240850100.1450@mail.fig.ol.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Trond_Endrest=F8l?= writes: > > > What happens if you confine WITH_DEBUG=yes to /etc/src.conf? This > > > way it should only affect base unless I'm mistaken. > > I was a bit wrong, for base it's WITHOUT_DEBUG_FILES=yes. I'm not sure > if the same applies to localbase aka ports. See make.conf(5) and > src.conf(5). The latter describes among others, WITHOUT_DEBUG_FILES. On my system - r334207 - it's only in src.conf, and the man page is ... imprecise ... about the consequemces of using it. "avoid building standalone debug files" - does that mean no files are built, or that there's some kind of unified file? And wouldn't the former make it impossible to debug non-kernel stuff in base? Respectfully, Robert Huff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?23666.41761.759191.463104>