This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 2017-11-15 03:09, David Stacey wrote: > On 15/11/17 07:38, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: >> The following concept would allow for sensible backtraces without >> installing a -debuginfo, at the expense of a moderate size increase of >> binaries (particularly with C++ code): >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MingwMiniDebugInfo > > Did you mean https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/MiniDebugInfo > Presumably you intend this for Cygwin binaries. Yes, but as we're not an ELF platform, I doubt we support the method used to implement MiniDebugInfo, so the implementation would be closer to MingwMiniDebugInfo. >> The patch for cygport would be minimal. Is it worth the size increase? > > The benefit to Fedora is obvious, in that it would increase the quality > of the automated bug reports. Do we have an equivalent in Cygwin (or is > one planned)? Right now, we don't have so many backtraces sent in to the > main list, but who knows - if they were easier to generate then we might. > > How would this work for Cygwin? Would we require all the lib.* packages > to be rebuilt? Not immediately, but I do think we are getting to the point where we really need a mass rebuild anyway. Therefore, I'm trying to queue up now any changes of such scope. -- Yaakov
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |