> On Mar 31, 2016, at 5:35 PM, David Blaikie <dblai...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Adrian Prantl <apra...@apple.com > <mailto:apra...@apple.com>> wrote: > >> On Mar 29, 2016, at 10:06 PM, David Blaikie <dblai...@gmail.com >> <mailto:dblai...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Adrian Prantl via cfe-commits >> <cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> > On Mar 29, 2016, at 12:00 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <jo...@britannica.bec.de >> > <mailto:jo...@britannica.bec.de>> wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 06:47:24PM +0000, Adrian Prantl via cfe-commits >> > wrote: >> >> This code in this patch listens to the driver option -gfull, and lowers >> >> it to the new cc1 option -debug-retain-types (1). >> >> When -debug-retain-types is present, CGDebugInfo will retain every(2) >> >> type it creates. >> > >> > Is there a good reason for calling it -gfull? I would find something >> > -gall-types or -gretain-all-types to make a lot more sense. This should >> > be orthogonal to other options like providing only line tables? >> >> My thinking was this: >> The driver already supports -gfull, but it doesn’t do anything. >> This patch can be considered a first step towards making -gfull behave as >> expected. >> Eventually it should emit debug info for *all* types. >> >> Seems somewhat problematic to half implement it, though. (admittedly we're >> just silently ignoring it right now) > > I don’t think this is problematic at all. This is incremental development. > > It strikes me as a strange increment. Implementing full -gfull doesn't seem > like it would take much time to implement, etc. >> >> & is 'real' -gfull what dtrace really wants? (seems it isn't - since clang's >> never really implemented it?) > > Admitted, ‘real' -gfull is probably more than it absolutely needs. > > If just retaining referenced types is all it needs, yeah, it seems -gfull > would be rather beyond that. > > >> Emitting all types referenced by used (even if later optimized away) code >> seems like the thing? -greferenced? or maybe a -f flag? Not sure. > > I don’t see a compelling case for adding another driver option to the already > confusing zoo of existing driver options. > > My point is I think a -gfull that does something other than full would > possibly be more confusing than not.
Point taken. Let’s surface this under a separate option instead. We can call it “-greferenced” to fit between -gfull and -gused. thanks, adrian > > Note that we currently also accept a -gused option which according to the > driver code is supposed to be the opposite of -gfull. > > Are -gused/-gfull meant to toggle each other? > > Huh, seems they're not general GCC flags, they're Darwin things - I didn't > know that. > > Looks like GCC usually spells this -f[no-]eliminate-unused-debug-types. But > doesn't seem to have an intermediate version that would be what you're going > for. > > Adding a -greferenced option IMO will only make this more confusion instead > of helping. > My suggestion is to have -gfull (also) activate -debug-retain-types. In the > somewhat hypothetical scenario that someone implements a more comprehensive > version of -gfull we should revisit this and analyze whether the resulting > debug information is really too large to be practical, and if we conclude > that this is a problem, we can still decide to expose -debug-retain-types to > the driver with a new separate option. > > I would be concerned about breaking other existing users that may grow once > we support the flag. (& perhaps inconsistency between GCC and Clang, but > inconsistency already exists there of course)
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
