From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-il1-x130.google.com (mail-il1-x130.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::130]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84C963846034 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 18:33:10 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 84C963846034 Received: by mail-il1-x130.google.com with SMTP id w8so20191120ilg.12 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 10:33:10 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=LnRjktClo0jiuQx0gGKm2+UBuN/pZVB+KTZWiamfreY=; b=leYLXLnk0Boqy+GBv9MmQpvjPDHTleaopHuIGD707X7/gqn7XJolMyhqaA+Tft//em OsWWcYNjwpMF8egRUfn1Se+jdLGJpy5j01yVIxQSw4hIHfTKEH43hCHdu70cET2oPK4p VECHW/FhCvqhMDj3D/63dG4Et3HYMi0SXuNiH+nviOsvoiOeM6/1RbxmZvziEYZTH1Ug YWYu0pwbgSy9oYV55UNNig9SyWp8bKACJGeMMYLZDJNH00+1XHz4zDCG7yv/axj3KHNS 9QmBXlN1LrjvWHQy4finZzDZZSpwVTQ7O0PvtWqDOjQZ14Axm+mXXnCM4RZcMYLjQXkk Z9Ug== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531F6JuFky81nHu+5wcRPM08t45mOoadLRn7FyWOm1Y0UWmjryNT ktEiQZ96PJz78LBUlNcXnzAGU3e7Qaw1+Snq4UE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyUBLlpo4S3QZOEzYKIR4DIg8Kqif6xP4b7g9UT2yrxy2h0W69B8JRZ/4egRDwimIz/jMwcDm0P1MwIoc4vPgY= X-Received: by 2002:a92:c50d:: with SMTP id r13mr3494881ilg.160.1606242789937; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 10:33:09 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201121001937.GE2684@wildebeest.org> <20201124074505.GL3788@tucnak> In-Reply-To: <20201124074505.GL3788@tucnak> From: David Blaikie Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 10:32:59 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: DWARF64 gcc/clang flag discussion To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: Richard Biener , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , "mark@klomp.org" , "ikudrin@accesssoftek.com" , Alexander Yermolovich , "maskray@google.com" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 18:33:11 -0000 On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 11:45 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 06:38:16PM -0800, David Blaikie via Gcc wrote: > > > I would pick -gdwarf32/-gdwarf64 (are we sure the DWARF spec will > > > never reach version 32 or 64? > > > maybe -g32 / -g64 similar to -m32/-m64 are good enough?) > > > > Any sense of a good way to break the tie/uncertainty? > > > > Alternatively: If Clang picks something here (likely from within this > > range of candidates - though given I've got a fair bit of say on the > > Clang side, and if left to me, I'd probably lean heavily on the > > -fdwarf32/64 side), is it likely that choice will tend to be adopted > > by GCC? I'd rather not get out of sync, but I expect a bit hard to get > > a conclusion on the GCC side without patches in progress, etc. Got a > > sense of who are the people who would likely be deciders/patch > > approvers for such a naming choice on the GCC side? > > Depends on what it would choose. Sure enough - I was more getting at "would Clang's choice here have much/any influence on GCC's choice in the future"? (ie: Is GCC interested in compatibility with Clang?) > 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. I understand that the actual collision isn't likely - but the proximity in phrasing seems liable to be confusing to users. (especially if it has different semantics re: enabling debug info and my understanding/reading of other threads was that folks were generally in agreement that we should try to avoid having debug-info-affecting flags that also enable debug info, instead trying to keep them more orthogonal, I think?) - Dave