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 revert your change and >> for *arg == '\0' instead of the 4.8: >> if (!opts->x_debug_info_level) >> opts->x_debug_info_level = DINFO_LEVEL_NORMAL; >> do: >> if (opts->x_debug_info_level < DINFO_LEVEL_NORMAL) >> opts->x_debug_info_level = DINFO_LEVEL_NORMAL; > > I agree on both points. 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 -g3? (I.e., -g will raise the level to 2 but will not lower it.) That seems reasonable to me, and it would support both build scenarios mentioned above (Andres' and mine). It'll leave the meaning of -g3 -g the same as 4.8, but change the meaning of -g1 -g (which shouldn't be much of a problem since everyone here seemed to think that -g1 usage was rare). -cary
