On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 06:42:29PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote:
> > I must say I don't really see advantages of this over
> > -grecord-gcc-switches, recording all options looks very bloaty and will
> > include mostly stuff you don't really care about (such as, e.g. the -I
> > options without knowing what was the current directory when the source file
> > has been compiled), on the other side will not record interesting options
> > that -grecord-gcc-switches records (say, if some code is compiled with
> > -march=native, this new option will record that, rather than what it really
> > is), but I won't stand in a way unless such an option would be on by
> > default.
>
> Yes, it's a minor disadvantage. On the other hand one can check the fortify
> macros. I don't care much about them too, but what's the biggest benefit to me
> is that each argument will not go into it's own mergeable section. Then
> you will not see something like:
Well, the fortify macro is questionable, because as a macro, it can be
either specified on the command line, or e.g. defined in the source before
including headers, so -g3 seems much better way to query it.
> The output is useless and can't disambiguate each compiler
> invocations.
Sure, I'm not talking about -frecord-gcc-switches, that option is indeed
not really useful.
Jakub
