On Tue, 2015-02-03 at 19:59 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Tue, 03 Feb 2015 19:50:40 +0100, Doug Evans wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Jan Kratochvil > > <jan.kratoch...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > [...] > > > It is wrong that gcc puts -fpreprocessed into DW_AT_producer - I may post > > > a gcc > > > patch for it. > > > > I wasn't aware there are now rules for what can and cannot go in > > DW_AT_producer. > > DW_AT_producer has gone from being informational to having a formal > > spec (in the sense that something will break if, for example, a > > particular option is mentioned). > > Is this spec written down somewhere? [At least guidelines for what > > things may lead to breakage?] > > No. Do you have a suggestion where to put it? Should it be only a GNU > extension or should it be even DWARF-standardized?
The gcc documentation describes it: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Debugging-Options.html -grecord-gcc-switches This switch causes the command-line options used to invoke the compiler that may affect code generation to be appended to the DW_AT_producer attribute in DWARF debugging information. The options are concatenated with spaces separating them from each other and from the compiler version. See also -frecord-gcc-switches for another way of storing compiler options into the object file. This is the default. -gno-record-gcc-switches Disallow appending command-line options to the DW_AT_producer attribute in DWARF debugging information. So Jan is right that gcc adding -fpreprocessed, which doesn't affect code generation, but is a preprocessor option, shouldn't be there. Cheers, Mark
