From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22045 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2007 15:31:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 22037 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jan 2007 15:31:47 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:31:38 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93A5348CE9E for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2007 10:31:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 00758-01-10 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2007 10:31:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (AStDenis-105-1-88-117.w80-8.abo.wanadoo.fr [80.8.217.117]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0145B48CE88 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2007 10:31:27 -0500 (EST) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B280134C09A; Fri, 5 Jan 2007 18:54:33 +0400 (RET) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:31:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: New Ada failure Message-ID: <20070105145433.GH3434@adacore.com> References: <20070104202406.GA26522@nevyn.them.org> <20070105035647.GB3434@adacore.com> <20070105035904.GA9926@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070105035904.GA9926@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg00094.txt.bz2 Hello Daniel, > Not up to me - I have Debian's gnat packages installed. Is this > documented, i.e. it should be considered a bug in those packages? I have now checked in a patch in GCC that explains that the GNAT runtime should not be stripped. Would you mind filing a bug with the Debian maintainers? I'm not familiar with the procedure. You may want to mention to them that they should be able to build the runtime without -g. There is a flag for it, probably LIBGNATCFLAGS or some such. The makefiles will know to force -g -O1 for the few units we need. -- Joel