Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [explore] Library Proposal: Container Streaming
From: OvermindDL1 (overminddl1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-12-02 18:49:45

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 9:02 AM, David Bergman
<David.Bergman_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2009, at 10:34 AM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> Phil Endecott wrote:
>>> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>>>> -O2 makes debugging experience sufficiently painful that nobody will ever
>>>> want to use that in debug builds, except in very unusual circumstances
>>> I routinely build with -O3 -g
>> And is that the set of options you actually use when you wish to debug something
>> that is know to be buggy? Or are those the set of options that permit you to
>> get somewhat usable backtrace "in the field"?
> Wow, I am often surprised by the tangential discussions that pop up here :-)
> Yes, it is sometimes proper to use both -g and -O2 (or -O3); I do it at times, but not as often as only with -g.
> BUT, this was not about "debug" vs "release" build. I know that you created a build without any optimization and with debug symbols (-g) when you got your big output (300k, right?) I just wanted to find out what the extra luggage of Boost.Serialization would be in a more relevant scenario, of a release build, i.e., I never stated that I created a "debug" build.

I do the same for Visual Studio, I have debugging turned on in both
Debug and Release, thankfully the debug data is stored in a separate
file and not in the application file so when I distribute then I do
not have to include that usually massive debug file. Is there not a
way to make it an external information file in GCC as in VS?

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at