Subject: Re: [Boost-build] Trivial issues have been neglected.
From: Matthew Chambers (matt.chambers42_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-10-16 11:09:19
On 10/15/2012 11:29 PM, Steven Watanabe wrote:
> On 10/15/2012 07:54 PM, Kohei Takahashi wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Can anyone handle following two issues?
>> <runtime-debugging>on does nothing for libstdc++...
> This is /not/ a trivial issue. It may
> be easy to do, but:
> a) _GLIBCXX_DEBUG was broken last time I tried it
> a few years ago. It won't work with all versions
> of gcc.
I've used it with 4.1.2 and it helped a lot to track down some mysterious failures.
> b) Anything the changes the ABI of the compiled
> libraries needs careful consideration and must
> be documented. The libraries that are built need
> to be ABI compatible with code that isn't compiled
> using Boost.Build.
Is it really that important that debug builds be ABI compatible between disparate builds? I think
it's reasonable to EXPECT trouble when linking a debug build to precompiled libraries. That is
certainly the case on Windows.
> c) <runtime-debugging>on is part of <variant>debug,
> but I don't think _GLIBCXX_DEBUG is a standard
> part of debug builds with gcc.
What is a "standard" debug build with gcc? Most people would probably say -g and -O0 but that
doesn't provide any real debugging support.
I agree it's not trivial, but having a no-op runtime-debugging feature is cringe-worthy. It's as
good as admitting that GCC (or rather, libstdc++) doesn't provide any "official" runtime debugging
support which is unfair.
In the spirit of upcoming elections, count this as a vote for turning on _GLIBCXX_DEBUG. :)
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk