From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-401798-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 2659 invoked by alias); 24 Sep 2012 15:04:32 -0000
Received: (qmail 2532 invoked by uid 48); 24 Sep 2012 15:04:07 -0000
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug other/54692] [4.8 Regression] gcc doesn't build with "-Og -g"
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 15:04:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: other
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-54692-4-PIW7l7M8dR@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-54692-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-54692-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-09/txt/msg01964.txt.bz2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54692

--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-24 15:04:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > Guess
> >   *) CFLAGS=`echo $CFLAGS | sed "s/-O[[s0-9]]* *//" `
> >      CXXFLAGS=`echo $CXXFLAGS | sed "s/-O[[s0-9]]* *//" ` ;;
> > needs to be now
> > -O[[s0-9gf]] instead (also for -Ofast).
> > That said, I don't see how it is related to using STAGE1_CFLAGS (note missing
> > XX).
> 
> I wonder why we do the above at all?  I suppose that's for removing
> a configure default, but the toplevel passes STAGE1_CFLAGS as CFLAGS to
> gcc configure (that's why we need to re-specify CFLAGS on the make
> command-line?!).

The intent of this is to make sure that the toplevel Makefile has whatever
fancy
CXXFLAGS/CFLAGS is needed for bootstrapping, and gcc/Makefile has corresponding
CXXFLAGS/CFLAGS without -O2 or similar in it.  Thus, if in --disable-bootstrap
(or cross) gcc you do make in toplevel, you are building an optimized compiler,
while cd gcc; make after you tweak stuff here and there will default to no
optimization and thus hopefully better debugging experience.  If/when -Og is
better than -O0 for debug experience surely we can use there -Og instead.
>>From toplevel make just passes down CXXFLAGS/CFLAGS, so the values stored in
gcc/Makefile are ignored.