echristo added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D49148#1166859, @echristo wrote:

> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D49148#1166429, @ABataev wrote:
>
> > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D49148#1165826, @echristo wrote:
> >
> > > I think you should break it out on an option by option basis. Just 
> > > warning on "non-standard" options won't make as much sense to end users. 
> > > Perhaps a "this option is unsupported on the target you're compiling for" 
> > > etc.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. I can split it, no problems.
> > 2. Hmm, actually this what the warning already says. If the option is not 
> > supported it says 'debug option '-xxx' is not supported for target 
> > 'xxx-xxx-xxx''. It does not seem to me like a warning on non-standard 
> > option.
>
>
> Let me try to elaborate a bit, I agree that I'm not very clear above.
>
> I'm not a fan of the generic "non default debug options". It feels 
> misleading. I think we probably want to separate it by "dwarf extensions", 
> and "dwarf version".
>
> As far as the error message itself: "debug option" sounds like an option to 
> debug clang rather than a debug information option. Perhaps say "debug 
> information option" rather than "debug option"?


Summarizing offline (irc) conversation:

Let's keep the generic solution that Alexey was using here, but instead migrate 
it to a "supports debug flag" routine that uses enums to check for which things 
we support. This way targets that don't quite support various levels of debug 
info or extensions can define them for themselves and even check OS versions.

(This would probably have been useful for darwin in the past and still might 
be).


Repository:
  rC Clang

https://reviews.llvm.org/D49148



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

Reply via email to