On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 12:57:32PM +1100, Duncan Roe wrote: > Hi Pablo, > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 07:42:12AM +1100, Duncan Roe wrote: > > Hi Pablo, > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 10:28:52AM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 11:56:05AM +1100, Duncan Roe wrote: > > > > * Simple compile line: > > > > * \verbatim > > > > -gcc -g3 -ggdb -Wall -lmnl -lnetfilter_queue -o nf-queue nf-queue.c > > > > +gcc -g3 -gdwarf-4 -Wall nf-queue.c -o nf-queue -lnetfilter_queue -lmnl > > > > > > I am going t remove -g3 and -gdwarf-4, so it ends up with: > > > > > > gcc -Wall nf-queue.c -o nf-queue -lnetfilter_queue -lmnl > > > > That makes nonsense of the previous line: > > > > | you should start by reading (or, if feasible, compiling and stepping through with gdb) nf-queue.c > > > > You can only step through nf-queue.c if you compile with the debug options. > > > > Please leave them there. > ^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^ > You chose to ignore this or maybe you just missed it? none of them, just disagreement. > I can send a patch to remove the reference to gdb in the previous paragraph or I > can send a patch to reinstate the gcc debug options. Which would you prefer? developers are familiar with debugging tools, there are more choices that gdb, -g is a "popular" flag, there is no need to document that many gcc options in the documentation, just a "Simple compile line" is fine. I very much apologize for the discomfort this rises on you. Thanks.
