On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 1:56 AM chuanqi.xcq wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> > I think Nathan might've been asking not only about what currently
> happens, but what we think should happen?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Is that consistent with `-o`? (I assume so, but don't know - I guess
> there aren't many cases where `
I think Nathan might've been asking not only about what currently
happens, but what we think should happen?
On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 7:11 PM chuanqi.xcq wrote:
>
> Hi Nathan,
>
> > 1) Are these flags silently ignored, if no module output is to be
> > generated? Or is some kind of diagnostic gene
Thanks Iain for the summary/thanks everyone for the discussion!
On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 9:33 AM Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
> Hello all.
>
> > On 9 Dec 2022, at 01:58, chuanqi.xcq wrote:
> >
> > It looks like `-fmodule-file` is better from the discussion. So let's take
> > it. Thanks for everyone here
Over in https://reviews.llvm.org/D137059 we're discussing the naming
of a clang flag - would be good to have it be consistent with GCC.
The functionality is to name the BMI (.pcm in Clang's parlance) output
file when compiling a C++20 module.
Current proposal is to use `-fsave-std-cxx-module-file
Thanks for the context, all!
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 3:22 AM Jakub Jelinek 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
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 5:10 PM Alexander Yermolovich
wrote:
>
>
> --
> *From:* David Blaikie
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 2, 2020 1:12 PM
> *To:* Alexander Yermolovich
> *Cc:* Richard Biener ; Jakub Jelinek <
> ja...@redhat.com>; Mark Wielaard ; gcc@gcc.gnu.org <
>
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 10:44 AM Alexander Yermolovich
wrote:
>
>
> --
> *From:* David Blaikie
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 1, 2020 10:33 AM
> *To:* Alexander Yermolovich
> *Cc:* Richard Biener ; Jakub Jelinek <
> ja...@redhat.com>; Mark Wielaard ; gcc@gcc.gnu.org <
>
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 5:04 PM Alexander Yermolovich
wrote:
>
>
> --
> *From:* David Blaikie
> *Sent:* Monday, November 30, 2020 12:09 PM
> *To:* Alexander Yermolovich
> *Cc:* Richard Biener ; Jakub Jelinek <
> ja...@redhat.com>; Mark Wielaard ; gcc@gcc.gnu.org <
>
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 11:36 AM Alexander Yermolovich
wrote:
> Thank you David for driving the conversation, sorry I was on vacation.
>
All good - really appreciate everyone chipping in whenever/however they can!
>
> I guess discussion is from perspective of having both flags
> gdwarf32/gdwar
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 1:22 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 7:38 PM David Blaikie wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:11 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:04:45PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 2020-11-24 at
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:11 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:04:45PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 08:50 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 8:45 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > > I agree with Richard and I'd lean tow
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:45 PM Jakub Jelinek 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 sim
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 6:59 PM Jeff Law wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/23/20 7:38 PM, David Blaikie via Gcc wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 12:32 AM Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> >> On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 1:21 AM m...@klomp.org wrote:
> >>> On Fri
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 12:32 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 1:21 AM m...@klomp.org wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 08:22:26PM +, Alexander Yermolovich wrote:
> > > On llvm side of compiler world there has been work done by Igor Kudrin to
> > > enable DWARF64.
>
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 4:12 AM Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Mon, 2020-08-31 at 20:10 -0700, David Blaikie wrote:
> > Hey Mark - saw a little of/bits about your presentation at LPC 2020 GNU
> > Tools Track (& your thread on on the gdb list about debug_names).
> Wondering
> > if you (or
Hey Mark - saw a little of/bits about your presentation at LPC 2020 GNU
Tools Track (& your thread on on the gdb list about debug_names). Wondering
if you (or anyone else you know who's contributing to debug info in GCC)
have some thoughts on this flag naming issue. It'd be great to get some
alignm
On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 7:49 PM Liu Hao via Gdb wrote:
>
> 在 2020/8/11 下午9:55, Nathan Sidwell 写道:
> >
> > I agree, it's the way I use auto. I particularly like the
> >auto *foo = expr;
> > idiom, when you're getting a pointer, but the type of the pointee is clear.
> > It informs how you use
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 12:09 PM Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>
> On 7/9/20 3:28 PM, Fangrui Song via Gcc wrote:
> > Fix email addresses:)
> >
>
> IMHO the -f ones are misnamed.
> -fFOO -> affect generated code (non-target-specific) or language feature
> -gFOO -> affect debug info
> -mFOO -> machine-spec
On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 12:03 PM Fangrui Song wrote:
>
> Both GCC and Clang have implemented many debugging options under -f and
> -g. Whether options go to -f or -g appears to be pretty arbitrary decisions.
>
> A non-complete list of GCC supported debug options is documented here at
> https://gcc.
19 matches
Mail list logo
