Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 10:13:49 +0700 From: Max Khon <fjoe@samodelkin.net> To: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: WITHOUT_PROFILE=yes by default Message-ID: <CADe0-4nHuaXVPB_gb=MW_Es%2BamjQnhyJ86mkRsfsp6r9TSdJHA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4ED428B8.8040909@FreeBSD.org> References: <66539.1322526789@critter.freebsd.dk> <4ED428B8.8040909@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Doug, On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> Are there any compelling reasons for having profiled libs to be built by > >>> default? > >> > >> Nope. It's been one of the first things I disable after I install a new > >> system for at least a decade. > >> > >> Ideally we could do this for 9.0. > > > > Can we at least keep one (small) library compiled for profiling, so > > that compiling for profiling doesn't get broken by accident ? > > I think WITH_PROFILE is probably a good idea for the tinderbox? Who is in charge for tinderbox these days? Max
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADe0-4nHuaXVPB_gb=MW_Es%2BamjQnhyJ86mkRsfsp6r9TSdJHA>