[asterisk-dev] [non]optimized builds

[Julian Lyndon-Smith]

Tilghman Lesher wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 February 2008 18:39:54 Simon Perreault wrote:
>> On Tuesday 05 February 2008 18:57:41 Dmitry Andrianov wrote:
>>> So if anyone has clear picture what is wrong with builds DONT_OPTIMIZEd
>>> by default, please share.
>> It's wrong because users expect the build to be optimized by default.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment
> 
> Users also expect that when something crashes, the information they
> see during the crash will be immediately helpful to developers and they won't
> have to jump through a series of hoops to get information helpful to the
> developers.
> 
>> The vast majority of open source packages out there build optimized by
>> default.

Has anyone actually measured the difference between OPTIMIZEd and 
DONT_OPTIMIZEd ? I compile and build with DONT_OPTIMIZE and have _never_ 
seen any performance related problems.

How about renaming the option to "STORE_BT" and turning it on by 
default. The help could read "Provide really useful information if 
asterisk crashes"

> 
> I wouldn't mind seeing some statistics that back that claim up and add some
> clarity.  For example, are only released versions optimized by default?  What
> about development or beta versions?  Should those versions include debugging
> symbols and be unoptimized by default?
> 

Julian