On Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 10:24 PM Fāng-ruì Sòng <mask...@google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:16 AM Richard Biener > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 5:50 PM Fangrui Song <mask...@google.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 2020-05-13, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > > >> Did I mention I dislike -fsplit-dwarf? ;) > > > > > > > >Seconded, this will be confusing for almost all users. Since the > option only > > > >affects debug info generation, it should be prefixed with 'g' in any > case. > > > > > > Updating the semantics of -gsplit-dwarf is actually my favorite as > > > well:) > > > > > > -gsplit-dwarf is not common. Many uses have separate -g. Let's change > it. > > > > > > Attached the patch. > > > > OK if there are no objections over the weekend. I guess this change > needs > > documenting in gcc-11/changes.html (which probably does not exist yet, > > will take care of that). > > > > Thanks, > > Richard. > > > > > > > > (I also wish -gdwarf-5 did not imply -g but the ship may have shipped.) > > Richard, are you still going to make this change? > (If you do it, I'll happy to ask folks to move forward with the clang > patch https://reviews.llvm.org/D80391 ) > > I've added a note from the original implementer (Cary Coutant) here: > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2020-July/233074.html > > On the clang side, I don't think anyone has expressed that they would > be upset by a behavior change. > I think I've repeatedly expressed this. My concerns are both the break in backwards compatibility and the general direction of -g flags that don't enable debug info emission which at least myself and a couple of other long time dwarf contributors (Eric Christopher and Cary Contant) have been surprised by/not the semantics that many debug info flags have. Several folks have expressed that the semantics are complex, though, > e.g. https://github.com/ccache/ccache/issues/393 >
