On Fri, 24 Mar 2023, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote: > Prior to the removal of STABS support the gdwarf, gstabs, ... options > formed a cycle with their Negative(..) option attribute. But that > didn't actually have any effect since most of the options also > are Joined or JoinedOrMissing for which there's no pruning of options > and so once ran into the set_debug_level diagnostics reporting > conflicting debug formats. > > The following removes the remains of that cycle, which is a > Negative option from gdwarf to gdwarf-. With RejectNegative > added the expected effect of -gdwarf-4 -gdwarf would be to > enable DWARF5 support (but this doesn't happen for some reason). > I think the more sensible behavior is that seen and implemented > in opts.cc, the more specific -gdwarf-4 determines the DWARF level > and a later or earlier -gdwarf becomes a no-op. So the > Negative(..) annotation on gdwarf is just confusing. > > Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, OK?
OK. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
