https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61013
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
As mentioned in PR77454, do we want to treat -gdwarf-N the same as -g (in
addition to setting the dwarf version), or should it be treated just like
setting of the DWARF version only if some debug info level
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61013
Tom Tromey tromey at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tromey at gcc dot
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61013
--- Comment #12 from ccoutant at google dot com ---
FWIW this regresses a few gdb tests. It's easy to fix the
gdb test suite, but if this is going to be fixed before the
next gcc release, I'd rather not bother. Any word on that?
I'm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61013
--- Comment #13 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ccoutant from comment #10)
Sorry, I'm not sure what both points are. Does that mean that you
would support changing -g so that -g1 -g means -g2, but -g3 -g means
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61013
--- Comment #14 from Cary Coutant ccoutant at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ccoutant
Date: Wed May 14 21:48:47 2014
New Revision: 210442
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210442root=gccview=rev
Log:
Change -g so that it will override -g1 but not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61013
--- Comment #15 from Cary Coutant ccoutant at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ccoutant
Date: Thu May 15 00:34:20 2014
New Revision: 210456
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210456root=gccview=rev
Log:
Change -g so that it will override -g1 but not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61013
Cary Coutant ccoutant at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61013
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61013
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It was not on accident, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-02/msg00260.html and
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg02077.html
And even where I said
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61013
--- Comment #5 from Andres Freund andres at anarazel dot de ---
Hi,
On 2014-04-30 15:48:33 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61013
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61013
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I certainly haven't noticed that discussion, if I did, I would object already
by that time.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61013
--- Comment #7 from Cary Coutant ccoutant at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Andres Freund from comment #2)
The point is that this has changed between 4.8 and 4.9... And I don't
see anything relevant in http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/changes.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61013
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I don't see why there should be any consistency with -O, it is a very different
option, with a very different usage and history.
The 4.8 behavior was that -g set debug level to 2 if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61013
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61013
--- Comment #10 from ccoutant at google dot com ---
So, my preference would be to revert to the 4.8 and older behavior, or if
there really is consensus that -g1 -g should mean -g2 rather than -g1, at
least change it so that -g3 -g means -g3 (so
15 matches
Mail list logo
