From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31709 invoked by alias); 3 Feb 2015 18:59:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 31682 invoked by uid 89); 3 Feb 2015 18:59:24 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 18:59:24 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t13IxIiY031095 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 3 Feb 2015 13:59:19 -0500 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-113.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.113]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t13IxDeH005985 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 3 Feb 2015 13:59:16 -0500 Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 18:59:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb-patches , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Mark Wielaard Subject: Re: [patch+7.9] compile: Filter out -fpreprocessed Message-ID: <20150203185912.GA26920@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <20150116224234.GA6176@host2.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-02/txt/msg00061.txt.bz2 On Tue, 03 Feb 2015 19:50:40 +0100, Doug Evans wrote: > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Jan Kratochvil > wrote: > > [...] > > It is wrong that gcc puts -fpreprocessed into DW_AT_producer - I may post a gcc > > patch for it. > > Hi. > I wasn't aware there are now rules for what can and cannot go in DW_AT_producer. > DW_AT_producer has gone from being informational to having a formal > spec (in the sense that something will break if, for example, a > particular option is mentioned). > Is this spec written down somewhere? [At least guidelines for what > things may lead to breakage?] No. Do you have a suggestion where to put it? Should it be only a GNU extension or should it be even DWARF-standardized? Jan