This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH GCC]Add 'force-dwarf-lexical-blocks' command line option
- From: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
- To: "Herman, Andrei" <Andrei_Herman at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "Herman_Andrei at mentor dot com" <Herman_Andrei at relay1 dot mentorg dot com>
- Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 08:59:37 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH GCC]Add 'force-dwarf-lexical-blocks' command line option
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <FEC4CADEDABC9E40A1EC17465AAC8402AE41BF45 at EU-MBX-04 dot mgc dot mentorg dot com>
On May 7, 2014, at 2:32 AM, Herman, Andrei <Andrei_Herman@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> However, code coverage tools that process the DWARF debug information to
> implement block/path coverage need more complete lexical block information.
So, it would be nice to give a hint in the actual documentation, why a user might use the flag, or for a maintainer to be able to predict exactly what was desired in some obscure corner of dwarf semantics given the documentation. I think it can be as simple as “This option is useful for code coverage tools that utilize the dwarf debug information.” A user, upon seeing that, would then ask, do I have such a tool, say no, and then know they don’t have to contemplate the goodness of the option further. If one is writing a coverage tool, upon seeing the documentation, they might then ask themselves, how might I use that flag profitably for my users.