On 11/23/20 7:38 PM, David Blaikie via Gcc wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 12:32 AM Richard Biener
> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 1:21 AM m...@klomp.org <m...@klomp.org> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> I would pick -gdwarf32/-gdwarf64 (are we sure the DWARF spec will
>> never reach version 32 or 64?
>> maybe -g32 / -g64 similar to -m32/-m64 are good enough?)
> Any sense of a good way to break the tie/uncertainty?
>
> Alternatively: If Clang picks something here (likely from within this
> range of candidates - though given I've got a fair bit of say on the
> Clang side, and if left to me, I'd probably lean heavily on the
> -fdwarf32/64 side), is it likely that choice will tend to be adopted
> by GCC? I'd rather not get out of sync, but I expect a bit hard to get
> a conclusion on the GCC side without patches in progress, etc. Got a
> sense of who are the people who would likely be deciders/patch
> approvers for such a naming choice on the GCC side?
Historically debugging options belong under -g on the GCC side and
options that twiddle code generation are under -f. So -gdwarf32
/-gdwarf64 or -g32/-g64 seem like the right options for GCC.
jeff
