After doing additional reading I find that the performance impact of "-g" is
none, apologies for the false alarm in my previous post. The only scenario
where I can think of a possible performance penalty is during initial load
of the library. Due to its large size it may enforce additional disk seeks,
thus slowing the performance. However I have'nt seen any benchmarks to prove
this hypothesis.
The difference of disk footprint however is considerable. Inherently the
debugging symbols generated for C++ programs are huge. Default quickfix
shared library size is 6.2M, whereas when built without debugging symbols,
its reduced to as low as 1.1M (5-6 times less than the original size).
6.2M is more likely to be a negligible disk footprint for most people, hence
there is no harm in ignoring this for now.
thanks,
-- Sibte
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 2:21 PM, <or...@qu...> wrote:
> How do including debug symbols make things any slower? I've never heard
> of this. Running the performance tests with and without is yielding no
> different results.
>
> > Is there any specific reason why we are setting the default compiler
> flags
> > for *nix systems to "-g"?
> > Would'nt it make more sense to exclude "-g" so that the compiled library
> is
> > smaller and faster?
> > thanks,
>
>
>
|
