Re: lib/54449: _pic.a libraries contain unwanted debug information

[Christos Zoulas <christos%zoulas.com@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR lib/54449; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Christos Zoulas <christos%zoulas.com@localhost>
To: gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
Cc: lib-bug-people%netbsd.org@localhost,
 gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost,
 netbsd-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost,
 Andreas Gustafsson <gson%gson.org@localhost>
Subject: Re: lib/54449: _pic.a libraries contain unwanted debug information
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2019 10:13:02 +0300

 > not sure what planet you are talking about, but DBG=-g has been
 > the right way to me for a long time, though slightly less than
 > i recalled (more a 90s thing :-)
 > 
 > revision 1.57
 > date: 2000-05-01 20:44:36 -0700;  author: sjg;  state: Exp;  lines: +4 -3;
 > Allow optimizer/debug flags to be changed on command line without
 > breaking everything.  Eg. use DBG="-O0 -g" when debugging something.
 
 Yes, you might have been using DBG="-O0 -g" for almost 20 years, but this
 variable is not documented anywhere outside the .mk files, and most people
 (I am guessing) don't know about it.
 
 > nothing is an accident when "DBG=-g" builds have debug info.
 
 But here we are not building with DBG=-g, but with with MKDEBUG=yes
 and libfoo_pic.a ends up with debugging info. Is that on purpose or an
 accident?
 
 > i used to build my whole systems this way without using MKDEBUG
 > (since that's much much newer), initially because i had some 
 > lossage using separate debug info files, though as i mentioned
 > before, i'm considering switching back to get debug symbols back
 > in to my static libraries as well.  i may have to set execmax
 > to some very low value to avoid the other bug..
 > 
 > i claim that their lack of debug info is a bug in MKDEBUG.
 
 Why would we have both libfoo_g.a and libfoo.a with debugging
 symbols? What's the difference between them? As for the other
 bugs, are they still there?
 
 christos