On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 08:22:26PM +0000, Alexander Yermolovich wrote: > On llvm side of compiler world there has been work done by Igor Kudrin to > enable DWARF64. > I am trying to add a flag to Clang to enable DWARF64 generation. > https://reviews.llvm.org/D90507 > In review David Blaikie pointed out that there has been a discussion on what > to call this flag: > https://linuxplumbersconf.org/event/7/contributions/746/attachments/578/1018/DWARF5-64.pdf > https://linuxplumbersconf.org/event/7/sessions/90/attachments/583/1201/dwarf-bof-notes-aug24-lpc-2020.txt > https://www.mail-archive.com/gcc@gcc.gnu.org/msg92495.html > > Reading through that it doesn't look like there is a consensus on what it > should be. > > From discussion there is seems to be mixed opinion if it should be > -f<name> or -g<name>. Primarily centered around if -g prefix implies > turning on generation of debug information. > > Now that LLVM can actually generate DWARF64 for ELF, can we come to consensus > on the name?
I don't believe any firm consensus was reached on naming yet. But I would pick -fdwarf32/-fdwarf64. Cheers, Mark
