On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Eric Christopher <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> On Jun 1, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Alexey Samsonov <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Eric Christopher <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > On Jun 1, 2012, at 2:10 AM, Alexey Samsonov <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > > Hi, cfe-commits! >> > > >> > > This patch improves support for different -g options: >> > > 1) Flags -ggdb{0,2,3}, -gdwarf-{2,3,4} are now supported and >> translated to "-g" (except -ggdb0). >> > > 2) Flag -gtoggle is supported. >> > > 3) Flags -g[no-]record-gcc-switches and -g[no-]strict-dwarf are >> supported and ignored. >> > > 4) Flags for alternate debug formats (-gcoff*, -gxcoff*, -gstabs*, >> -gvms*) are marked as unsupported and produce an error. >> > >> > ... what on earth is -gtoggle for? >> > >> > Or do you mean Clang doesn't need to support this one? >> > >> >> I'm ok with it not supporting it. That's just silly. If you've got a use >> for it I don't necessarily mind though. > > > I see no use for it. Let's not support it, ideally by rejecting it (as it > should theoretically have an impact on the output that we won't reproduce. > Agree. Marked -gtoggle as unsupported as well. What do you think of -g1/-ggdb1 options? AFAIR, Clang can't emit debug info of that level, should we be more strict than just printing "arugment unused during compilation" warning as we do now? http://codereview.appspot.com/6250082/ -- Alexey Samsonov, MSK
g_options2.diff
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
