https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97989
--- Comment #18 from Stas Sergeev <stsp at users dot sourceforge.net> --- IMHO the only thing that makes sense, is whether or not this is useful in practice. If there are no practical cases for current "-g3 -P" behaviour, then to me the fact that its documented that way, is more or less irrelevant. :) Besides, not every extension contradicts the documentation. If you extend -P that way, it will still suppress the line numbers, perfectly as documented before, so no old use-cases are supposed to be broken. > clang simply decided not to implement the documented > switches the way they were documented. But in a way that is most useful in practice. :) But whatever. I know such arguments (practical use vs documentation) were raised 1024+ times here, so not trying to say something new.
