dblaikie added inline comments.

================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/CodeGenOptions.def:35
 CODEGENOPT(AsmVerbose        , 1, 0) ///< -dA, -fverbose-asm.
+CODEGENOPT(Dwarf64           , 1, 0) ///< -gdwarf64.
 CODEGENOPT(PreserveAsmComments, 1, 1) ///< -dA, -fno-preserve-as-comments.
----------------
ayermolo wrote:
> ikudrin wrote:
> > dblaikie wrote:
> > > Is there any precedent to draw from for this flag name? (Does GCC support 
> > > DWARF64? Does it support it under this flag name or some other? 
> > > (similarly with other gcc-like compilers (Intel's? Whoever else... )))
> > It looks like we are pioneering in that area. To me, the proposed name 
> > looks consonant with other debug-related switches.
> I didn't see any dwarf64 flags in gcc:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Option-Summary.html
> 
> I tried to follow clang convention for other dwarf flags.
Huh - tried making really big binaries or anything (or checking the GCC source) 
to see if it does it implicitly under some conditions?
Hmm - looks like this maybe came up at the Linux Plumbers Conference & the 
suggested flag was -fdwarf64/32: 
https://linuxplumbersconf.org/event/7/contributions/746/attachments/578/1018/DWARF5-64.pdf
 (this avoids the "does g imply debug info" and avoids the subtle distinction 
between "-gdwarf64 and -gdwarf-N" the presence of the '-' changing the meaning 
of the number quite significantly). Though hardly authoritative
https://linuxplumbersconf.org/event/7/sessions/90/attachments/583/1201/dwarf-bof-notes-aug24-lpc-2020.txt
 - seems some other options were (are?) under consideration too. Might be worth 
touching base with the folks involved in those discussions to see where they're 
at with regard to naming/support?

(they also touch on the "all units must agree" issue - so not sure if the same 
folks involved in those discussions have also been included in the discussions 
around debug info 32/64 sorting as another approach that may avoid the "all 
units must agree" constraint (I assume that's the reason they had that 
constraint))


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D90507/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D90507

_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to