From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com>
To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: c/2678: gcc/g++ should stick compilation options into the .o file 
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 10:26:00 -0000
Message-id: <20010430172601.31387.qmail@sourceware.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-04/msg00750.html
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>

The following reply was made to PR c/2678; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28@cam.ac.uk>
Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, pedwards@disaster.jaj.com
Subject: Re: c/2678: gcc/g++ should stick compilation options into the .o file 
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 10:21:12 -0700

 In message <Pine.LNX.4.32.0104301813300.17624-100000@kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac
 .uk>, you wrote:
 
 >On 30 Apr 2001, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
 >
 >>  As I noted, they can always run `strip' after the compile, if the extra
 >>  info really bothers them.
 >
 >But does "strip" (without other options) remove these sections?  It
 >doesn't (binutils 2.11.90.0.6) remove .comment and .note; for that reason,
 >Debian has modified "install -s" to pass --remove-section=.comment
 >--remove-section=.note to strip.
 
 a)  It's no big deal to also supply --remove-section=.comment on the
     strip command line.
 
 b)  In practice, nobody will give a damn about the presence or absense of
     this extra information anyway.