[cfe-commits] PATCH: Better support for -g options in Clang driver

[Eric Christopher]

On Jun 4, 2012, at 10:22 AM, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 9:11 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at apple.com> wrote:
> 
> On Jun 4, 2012, at 12:36 AM, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at apple.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Jun 1, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at apple.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Jun 1, 2012, at 2:10 AM, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com> 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".
> 
> This is reasonable. Maybe, we can support -g, -g0 and -g2, but produce warnings (or driver errors?) on -g1 and -g3?

Sure. Keep in mind g0 is no debug information :)

-eric