This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Statement Frontier Notes, Location Views, and Inlined Entry Point Markers
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 12:29 AM, Alexandre Oliva <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 2017, Richard Biener <email@example.com> wrote:
>> +Common Driver RejectNegative Var(debug_nonbind_markers_p, 0) Init(2)
>> +Don't enforce progressive recommended breakpoint locations.
>> +Common Driver RejectNegative Var(debug_nonbind_markers_p, 1)
>> +Emit progressive recommended breakpoint locations.
>> others get away with a single flag and Init(-1). That is, -gstatement-frontiers
>> should set it to 1 already and -gno- to 0. Why do you need the explicit
>> entry for gno-..?
> All debug options that support negation seem to have adopted this idiom;
> without it, the negated options end up misparsed as -g with an argument,
> and then set_debug_level complains that "no-..." is not a number.
> The logic of matching the longest option name prefix doesn't seem to
> work very well when options have a prefix that is also a valid option
> with a Joined(OrMissing) argument.
> The same problem applies to -O: -Ono-fast is not parsed as a negative of
> -Ofast, but as -O with no-fast as the argument, even though no
> RejectNegative flag is present under Ofast.
Ah, like we don't have -no-g but only -g0. I guess that there's -fno-
is somewhere hardcoded and -g isn't handled that way. Would need
to amend the options machinery somehow (new flag, Negatable?).
Thus ok as in your patch for now.
> Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
> You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
> Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member
> Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer