On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 7:24 AM Fāng-ruì Sòng <mask...@google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:16 AM Richard Biener > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 5:50 PM Fangrui Song <mask...@google.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 2020-05-13, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > > >> Did I mention I dislike -fsplit-dwarf? ;) > > > > > > > >Seconded, this will be confusing for almost all users. Since the option > > > >only > > > >affects debug info generation, it should be prefixed with 'g' in any > > > >case. > > > > > > Updating the semantics of -gsplit-dwarf is actually my favorite as > > > well:) > > > > > > -gsplit-dwarf is not common. Many uses have separate -g. Let's change it. > > > > > > Attached the patch. > > > > OK if there are no objections over the weekend. I guess this change needs > > documenting in gcc-11/changes.html (which probably does not exist yet, > > will take care of that). > > > > Thanks, > > Richard. > > > > > > > > (I also wish -gdwarf-5 did not imply -g but the ship may have shipped.) > > Richard, are you still going to make this change?
Sorry - I thought you'd commit the patch. I've now done that and will amend changes.html. Richard. > (If you do it, I'll happy to ask folks to move forward with the clang > patch https://reviews.llvm.org/D80391 ) > > I've added a note from the original implementer (Cary Coutant) here: > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2020-July/233074.html > > On the clang side, I don't think anyone has expressed that they would > be upset by a behavior change. > Several folks have expressed that the semantics are complex, though, > e.g. https://github.com/ccache/ccache/issues/393
