From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26157 invoked by alias); 13 Apr 2010 19:19:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 26144 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Apr 2010 19:19:21 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from c2beaomr01.btconnect.com (HELO c2beaomr01.btconnect.com) (213.123.26.179) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:19:17 +0000 Received: from thor.office (host81-138-1-83.in-addr.btopenworld.com [81.138.1.83]) by c2beaomr01.btconnect.com with ESMTP id FAJ02940; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:18:58 +0100 (BST) X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=0001.0A0B0301.4BC4C3A1.01EA, actions=tag Cc: Ian Lance Taylor , GCC Development Message-Id: From: IainS To: "Peter O'Gorman" In-Reply-To: <4BC4B272.5090606@pogma.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Subject: Re: specs question. Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:21:00 -0000 References: <6807833B-8AB9-468B-9936-09025C700DF7@sandoe-acoustics.co.uk> <4F670628-977A-4305-8E0B-1D64E95833EA@sandoe-acoustics.co.uk> <4BC4B272.5090606@pogma.com> Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-04/txt/msg00296.txt.bz2 On 13 Apr 2010, at 19:05, Peter O'Gorman wrote: >> gcc hello.c -g -o hc => dsymutils gets run (not expected from the >> syntax, assuming that sources are irrelevant) >> >> gcc hello.o -g -o hc => no dsymutils (expected from the absence of >> '.o' >> in the list) > We don't want to run dsymutil if there are .o files, let the developer > do that. OK, although AFAICT, it should be harmless doing it in the general case (and, to some extent, more friendly). > If someone just does gcc -g -o foo foo.c, then any debugging > information > will be lost when the temporary .o file is removed, thus, to allow > debugging such a foo, the compiler must run dsymutil. That's understood - although see below for a comment on Fortran***. > Strange, Apple's gcc-4.2 doesn't have this bug (-lm), yet that portion > of the specs appears identical. indeed - although of course there's no reason to suppose that gcc/ gcc.c is identical in the two cases (I can check that at some stage) My question has more to do with whether the apparent intention of the spec is being honored.. ... and also why it doesn't work if I add more extensions (e.g. to extend coverage to Fortran, which Apple are not trying to cover in their case). [***Even if I remove the %{.xxx.xxx.xx: } in the dsyutil section, there's a subsidiary issue with the Fortran case in that the debug info is only working if I put -save-temps on the CL]. cheers, Iain