[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#401385: This might not be as easy as I thought...

Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> Kevin Brown writes:
> > That may be true, but developers aren't the only ones who might make
> > use of these files.  Anyone who gets a crash in an Ada application
> > could get a much better traceback (for filing a bug report) with
> > these files in place than without.
> > 
> > Independent of the potential issues described below, we should give
> > some serious thought to including the debugging files with the runtime
> > package.
> > 
> > It does bloat the package a bit, though.
> The overriding reason is multilib.  We will make a separate -dbg
> package, and we will probably even move the static library to another
> package, too.  Better do it right the first time.

Yeah, I'm all for that.  I just wasn't sure how hard it would be.

> The only part of the package name that will change across versions is
> the version number, and there is a macro in the Makefiles for that:
> $(GNAT_VERSION).  All package names in binary-ada.mk are derived from
> that macro, and we pass its value to m4 so it generates control from
> control.m4.  So, no problem.  See the top 15 lines of binary-ada.mk of
> you're not convinced.

OK, this should (hopefully) be relatively easy then.  It takes a
number of hours for the package to build on my box, so it'll take some
time for me to make the changes and debug them.

Kevin Brown					      kevin@sysexperts.com

Reply to: