On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 10:25 AM, <waltdnes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > A few years ago on the Busybox list I stumbled over... > http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2012-September/078326.html > http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2012-September/078331.html > > ...where "-fno-unwind-tables -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables" CFLAGS > were shown to reduce the filesize of builds. The Busybox people are > building for constrained environments, so this is very important to > them. I include those flags in my Gentoo linux config. > > I'm manually building and running the beta for the next version of > Pale Moon (linux). A build without the flags produces a 43,262,332 byte > tarball. With the flags, it's 40,528,597 bytes; approximately 2.7 > megabytes smaller. I've suggested to the developers that they use these > flags when building Pale Moon, but they have concerns about impacts on > debugging. > > So my question is whether or not the flags > "-fno-unwind-tables -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables" make debugging > harder. Has anything changed in that area in the past 4 years? For typical use those options will not affect debugging. Using those options will in some cases make it harder for the debugger to give you a good backtrace when a signal occurs. (And of course using those options means that C++ exceptions will not work correctly, and if you are using glibc the pthread_cancel function may not work correctly.) Ian
