Thanks for the context, all!
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 3:22 AM Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 08:14:20AM +0100, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
> > > Sorry, just going around in circles a bit, I guess this may be a better
> > > summary:
> > > If I had to pick a -g flag/semantic for this, I guess I'd pick
> > > -gdwarf32/64 without implied -g. I'd pick that if I knew GCC would
> > > implement it to match - but if GCC might go either way on implied -g, I
> > > think I'd rather avoid changing the semantics of the flag later on &
> use a
> > > different name GCC isn't likely to define different semantics for (and
> I'd
> > > probably pick -fdwarf32/64).
> > >
> > >
> > > There's an approved patch to add -gdwarf{32,64} not implying -g
> > > [Alex] Do you happen to have a link on hand to it?
> > >
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-December/560734.html
>
> Note, the change is already in GCC trunk.
>
> Jakub
>
>
