https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94722
--- Comment #2 from Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers at google dot com> --- Also note this post in the thread [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200422192113.gg26...@zn.tnic/T/#m88641fe74bdffe7beaa925dfe2d8146a08a47bac, also https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200422192113.gg26...@zn.tnic/T/#m691ff07f537102f1f5f63d4b65405b44f15956cc "As we determined upthread (and the reason why we even still have this thread): the optimize attribute (and pragma) reset flags from the command line (the case in point was -fno-omit-frame-pointer). So, that's not a solution for now." "As you will discover upthread that was tried with GCC and found insufficient, as GCC is a bit surprising with optimize attributes: it resets every -f option from the command line and applies only the ones from the attributes. Including a potential -fno-omit-frame-pointer, causing all kinds of itches :)" We have the ability to work around differences in attribute identifiers easily in the Linux kernel, so the difference in naming while suboptimal, isn't painful for the Linux kernel in practice. Though I will buy another beer for the developer if it happens to match Clang's naming. :)
