On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:45 PM Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 06:38:16PM -0800, David Blaikie via Gcc wrote: > > > 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?) > > > > Any sense of a good way to break the tie/uncertainty? > > > > Alternatively: If Clang picks something here (likely from within this > > range of candidates - though given I've got a fair bit of say on the > > Clang side, and if left to me, I'd probably lean heavily on the > > -fdwarf32/64 side), is it likely that choice will tend to be adopted > > by GCC? I'd rather not get out of sync, but I expect a bit hard to get > > a conclusion on the GCC side without patches in progress, etc. Got a > > sense of who are the people who would likely be deciders/patch > > approvers for such a naming choice on the GCC side? > > Depends on what it would choose.
Sure enough - I was more getting at "would Clang's choice here have much/any influence on GCC's choice in the future"? (ie: Is GCC interested in compatibility with Clang?) > I agree with Richard and I'd lean towards -gdwarf32/-gdwarf64, even when > DWARF 32 is released in 81 years from now or how many, it would use > -gdwarf-32. I understand that the actual collision isn't likely - but the proximity in phrasing seems liable to be confusing to users. (especially if it has different semantics re: enabling debug info and my understanding/reading of other threads was that folks were generally in agreement that we should try to avoid having debug-info-affecting flags that also enable debug info, instead trying to keep them more orthogonal, I think?) - Dave
