Re: c/2678: gcc/g++ should stick compilation options into the .o file

["Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com>]

The following reply was made to PR c/2678; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com>
To: Phil Edwards <pedwards@disaster.jaj.com>
Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: c/2678: gcc/g++ should stick compilation options into the .o file 
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 09:42:02 -0700

 In message <20010430040740.A31126@disaster.jaj.com>, you wrote:
 
 >On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 09:16:00AM -0000, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
 >>  >After some sleep, I've concluded that my original idea of using the
 >>  >print_switch_values routine might be stupid.  I don't think people would l
 >ike
 >[...]
 >>  >showing up in their object files, for example.  (Or do you?)
 >>  
 >>  Yes, it would be perfectly OK to put that all into a .comment or .note
 >>  section.  Those sections DO NOT get loaded into main memory at run time,
 >>  and if necessary, `strip' and be used to remove them after the .o is built.
 >
 >I know they don't have SHF_ALLOC set, I was concerned with diskspace.
 >Which is probably cheap enough to not be worth caring about, on further
 >reflection.
 
 Correct.
 
 >For that matter, I had planned to have this controlled by a flag,
 >on by default.  People really low on space can always use the flag.
 >(something like -fno-note-options)
 
 I don't see that as either necessary or useful.
 
 As I noted, they can always run `strip' after the compile, if the extra
 info really bothers them.