From: David Blaikie <dblaikie@gmail.com>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Cc: Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>,
Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>,
"gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>,
"ikudrin@accesssoftek.com" <ikudrin@accesssoftek.com>,
Alexander Yermolovich <ayermolo@fb.com>,
"maskray@google.com" <maskray@google.com>
Subject: Re: DWARF64 gcc/clang flag discussion
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 10:38:28 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAENS6EsYxhJXrAXU4mGedxnC1ucRCRByWz_j7qAMcJ=LJSQ+TQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201124111118.GS3788@tucnak>
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:11 AM Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> 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 <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > I agree with Richard and I'd lean towards -gdwarf32/-gdwarf64, even
> > > > when DWARF 32 is released in 81 years from now or how many, it would
> > > > use -gdwarf-32.
> > >
> > > Works for me. Let's go with -gdwarf32/64.
> >
> > I don't have a strong opinion, so if that is the consensus, lets go
> > with that. The only open question (which I wanted to avoid by picking
> > -f...) is whether it enables generating debuginfo as is normal when
> > using any -goption, or whether you need another -goption to explicitly
> > turn on debuginfo generation when using -gdwarf32/64? My preference
> > would be that any option starting with -g enables debuginfo generation
> > and no additional -g is needed to keep things consistent.
>
> I think we lost that consistency already, I think -gsplit-dwarf has been
> changed quite recently not to imply -g.
My understanding was that that change hasn't gone in at this point, in
part because of the issue of changing the semantics of an existing
flag and discussions around whether -g implies debug info. Could you
confirm if this change has been made in GCC? as it may be important to
make a similar change in Clang for consistency.
Not that Split DWARF would be the first example of -g flags that don't
imply -g. (-ggnu-pubnames, I think, comes to mind)
> That said, for -gdwarf32/64, I think it is more sensible to enable debug
> info than not to.
Given my (& I think others on both GCC and Clang from what I gathered
from the previous threads) fairly strong desire to allow selecting
features without enabling debug info - perhaps it'd make sense for
Clang to implement -fdwarf32/64 and then can implement -gdwarf32/64
for compatibility whenever GCC does (without implementing -gdwarf32/64
with potentially differing semantics than GCC re: enabling debug info)
Seems these conversations end up with a bunch of different
perspectives which is compounding the inconsistencies/variety in
flags.
If there's general agreement that -g* flags should imply -g, maybe we
could carveout the possibility then that -f flags can affect debug
info generation but don't enable it? For users who want to be able to
change build-wide settings while having potentially
per-library/per-file customization. (eg: I want to turn down the debug
info emission on this file (to, say, -gmlt) but I don't want to force
debug info on for this file regardless of build settings)
- Dave
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-24 18:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-20 20:22 Alexander Yermolovich
2020-11-21 0:19 ` mark
2020-11-23 8:32 ` Richard Biener
2020-11-24 2:38 ` David Blaikie
2020-11-24 2:59 ` Jeff Law
2020-11-24 3:03 ` David Blaikie
2020-11-24 3:21 ` Jeff Law
2020-11-24 7:45 ` Jakub Jelinek
2020-11-24 7:50 ` Richard Biener
2020-11-24 11:04 ` Mark Wielaard
2020-11-24 11:11 ` Jakub Jelinek
2020-11-24 15:22 ` Jeff Law
2020-11-24 18:38 ` David Blaikie [this message]
2020-11-25 9:22 ` Richard Biener
2020-11-25 21:46 ` David Blaikie
2020-11-30 19:35 ` Alexander Yermolovich
2020-11-30 20:08 ` Fāng-ruì Sòng
2020-11-30 20:09 ` David Blaikie
2020-12-01 1:04 ` Alexander Yermolovich
2020-12-01 18:33 ` David Blaikie
2020-12-02 18:43 ` Alexander Yermolovich
2020-12-02 21:12 ` David Blaikie
2020-12-03 1:10 ` Alexander Yermolovich
2020-12-03 17:52 ` David Blaikie
2020-12-04 8:36 ` Richard Biener
2020-12-04 18:01 ` Alexander Yermolovich
2020-12-07 7:14 ` Richard Biener
2020-12-07 11:22 ` Jakub Jelinek
2020-12-07 19:08 ` David Blaikie
2020-11-30 20:25 ` Mark Wielaard
2020-11-24 18:32 ` David Blaikie
2020-11-24 18:59 ` Eric Botcazou
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAENS6EsYxhJXrAXU4mGedxnC1ucRCRByWz_j7qAMcJ=LJSQ+TQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=dblaikie@gmail.com \
--cc=ayermolo@fb.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=ikudrin@accesssoftek.com \
--cc=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=mark@klomp.org \
--cc=maskray@google.com \
--cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).