On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 1:21 AM m...@klomp.org <m...@klomp.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 08:22:26PM +0000, Alexander Yermolovich wrote: > > On llvm side of compiler world there has been work done by Igor Kudrin to > > enable DWARF64. > > I am trying to add a flag to Clang to enable DWARF64 generation. > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D90507 > > In review David Blaikie pointed out that there has been a discussion on > > what to call this flag: > > https://linuxplumbersconf.org/event/7/contributions/746/attachments/578/1018/DWARF5-64.pdf > > https://linuxplumbersconf.org/event/7/sessions/90/attachments/583/1201/dwarf-bof-notes-aug24-lpc-2020.txt > > https://www.mail-archive.com/gcc@gcc.gnu.org/msg92495.html > > > > Reading through that it doesn't look like there is a consensus on what it > > should be. > > > > From discussion there is seems to be mixed opinion if it should be > > -f<name> or -g<name>. Primarily centered around if -g prefix implies > > turning on generation of debug information. > > > > Now that LLVM can actually generate DWARF64 for ELF, can we come to > > consensus on the name? > > I don't believe any firm consensus was reached on naming yet. But I > would pick -fdwarf32/-fdwarf64.
I would pick -gdwarf32/-gdwarf64 (are we sure the DWARF spec will never reach version 32 or 64? maybe -g32 / -g64 similar to -m32/-m64 are good enough?) Richard. > Cheers, > > Mark
