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

Re: Bug#415194: libextlib-ocaml-dev: No debugging information

On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 14:47 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 09:25:34PM +1000, skaller wrote:
> > Is it still possible to use the debugger and get a backtrace etc 
> > if there are no debugging symbols in these libraries?
> Of course not, but this is not the point. Indeed, the same argument can
> be made for C libraries, but for C libraries the default is not to ship
> debugging symbols, why OCaml should make a difference from this point of
> view? 

A strong form of my previous statement is:

	"bytecode has no use *other* than debugging"

	"I have native code compiler, why would I bother with
	bytecode except to work around the fact the Ocaml debugger
	doesn't work with native code?"

Of course, I don't believe such a strong statement is correct,
it isn't representative of what other people do, and it isn't
an argument for or against including debugging symbols, so much
as a data point for your consideration.

The situation IS different to C because there is a coupling:

	bytecode <--> debugging
	native code <---> performance

which doesn't exist in C. For example I might build two versions
of an executable:

	A) the production version, native code, -unsafe, fast
	B) the debug version, bytecode, safe

and if I have problems with (A) then try (B). Such a model
favours bytecode with debug symbols .. there's no use
in that model for bytecode without debug symbols.

But still not an argument here -- just a data point for consideration.

John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net>
Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net

Reply to: