From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io1-xd32.google.com (mail-io1-xd32.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d32]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F33E3388A42F for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 02:38:26 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org F33E3388A42F Received: by mail-io1-xd32.google.com with SMTP id t8so20323790iov.8 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 18:38:26 -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=HnvLp3ecNIbUXM2c40QYE/khox92uBskzw7+XRzBLGE=; b=b6R7qWR/nuylMOqLcJtk2ApLUQUrcsroef8yAlvx3/wuVw+ILLi35qvEvlwDy6vwpJ qXqMNfIGK6mayUPGGxF/cvjjD91Il3SnkJh3Y43fgWUfzQHMWHMNi1ilgHqEiHHTUgCS /QfeglOAB7QD7Izr0wnro3h1VgLbmEYoLHySyQtNqh4+VBpWF62hYiumZi60lH52M3Gr 5brSw2outvgIcO12DBQDlZhfQz5iknjK1JgXyR4Ukz/EJTprt3Xt97aU9JUymfC3U8XC Ae7YUhrAyc/iEciG17RxSm+RrUl/JCHaERTdlcdYKKfe3eumt05MQg+D7gS8oCFQVILR DjIA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5321CSXCOuKXHBo8pLAVUGFhf2fIxVbTGVp2eelseJUdduWI/jfT 6/Dvt7WSTlIfehghbVflOyKvFUxR3XAt8yYeBf0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx/TrMxujwNkMmcZhzt0MC1TtWJnqdkSnSwmdCmow3jALsZEq5Stv0jxi3ufqxl557ehnmljDPbx5dGoslGQNU= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:7f47:: with SMTP id m7mr2264809ioq.83.1606185506409; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 18:38:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201121001937.GE2684@wildebeest.org> In-Reply-To: From: David Blaikie Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 18:38:16 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: DWARF64 gcc/clang flag discussion To: Richard Biener Cc: "mark@klomp.org" , Alexander Yermolovich , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , "ikudrin@accesssoftek.com" , "maskray@google.com" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 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 02:38:28 -0000 On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 12:32 AM Richard Biener wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 1:21 AM mark@klomp.org wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 08:22:26PM +0000, Alexander Yermolovich wrote: > > > On llvm side of compiler world there has been work done by Igor Kudrin to enable DWARF64. > > > I am trying to add a flag to Clang to enable DWARF64 generation. https://reviews.llvm.org/D90507 > > > In review David Blaikie pointed out that there has been a discussion on what to call this flag: > > > https://linuxplumbersconf.org/event/7/contributions/746/attachments/578/1018/DWARF5-64.pdf > > > https://linuxplumbersconf.org/event/7/sessions/90/attachments/583/1201/dwarf-bof-notes-aug24-lpc-2020.txt > > > https://www.mail-archive.com/gcc@gcc.gnu.org/msg92495.html > > > > > > Reading through that it doesn't look like there is a consensus on what it should be. > > > > > > From discussion there is seems to be mixed opinion if it should be > > > -f or -g. Primarily centered around if -g prefix implies > > > turning on generation of debug information. > > > > > > Now that LLVM can actually generate DWARF64 for ELF, can we come to consensus on the name? > > > > I don't believe any firm consensus was reached on naming yet. But I > > would pick -fdwarf32/-fdwarf64. > > 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? - Dave