On Jun 4, 2012, at 12:36 AM, Alexey Samsonov <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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? *shrug* We don't support level 3 at the moment or really any of the levels other than 0 (none) and (2) all of it, but no macros. I'd prefer right now just to not support -gLevel so people don't expect things. Just have it as "argument unused". -eric _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
