If -O3 makes debugging harder, then I'm against its default use. If there are no public, documented measurements that -O3 is better for a specific package, then don't use -O3 for that package. I work with tool chains for software development, and with low-level libraries such as glibc, musl, uClibc, libbfd, etc. I encounter disagreements over the actual interface between components, and the applied meaning of specifications. This leads to debugging random apps and the packages that they depend on. For released Fedora packages, this involves debuginfod and debuginfo servers. While debugging, then a gdb message such as "value optimized out", or a misleading diagnosis of the correspondence between PC value and source location, becomes a significant stumbling block. Sometimes I can learn indirectly I want; other times a re-build using -O1 or -O0 is better, but takes more time. If default use of -O3 makes my debugging harder than the current default of -O2, then for me that's a step backwards. -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
