From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c/2678: gcc/g++ should stick compilation options into the .o file Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 09:46:00 -0000 Message-id: <20010430164601.12205.qmail@sourceware.cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-04/msg00746.html List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c/2678; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" To: Phil Edwards 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.