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? (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
