[OE-core] [PATCH 2/5] gcc-5.3.inc/base.bbclass: add gcc option to not record -fdebug-prefix-map to debugging info

[Khem Raj]

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 6:09 AM, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-02-01 at 22:01 +0800, Hongxu Jia wrote:
>> On 01/30/2016 06:57 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2016-01-29 at 18:36 -0800, Khem Raj wrote:
>> > > > On Jan 29, 2016, at 5:25 PM, Hongxu Jia <
>> > > > hongxu.jia at windriver.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > On 01/30/2016 01:47 AM, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
>> > > > > Wouldn't it be better to swap the first and second commit and
>> > > > > then
>> > > > > move the addition of -gno-record-debug-prefix-map to the
>> > > > > other
>> > > > > commit
>> > > > > where -fdebug-prefix-map are added.
>> > > > OK
>> > > >
>> > > > > You must also remember that not all use the compiler provided
>> > > > > by
>> > > > > OE-Core, so adding -gno-record-debug-prefix-map
>> > > > > unconditionally
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > DEBUG_CFLAGS will break with unpatched compilers... (This
>> > > > > also
>> > > > > indicates that "Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [oe specific]"
>> > > > > may
>> > > > > not be quite right if you want this to be supported by other
>> > > > > compiler versions).
>> > > > Agree, we should conditionally add -gno-record-debug-prefix-map
>> > > > to
>> > > > support other compiler. Thank you for pointing it out.
>> > > its not only non gcc compilers, we also have gcc 4.9 still.
>> > I think we do likely need to patch 4.9. For other compilers than
>> > that,
>> > or other compilers, I'd suggest that people can either define a set
>> > of
>> > DEBUG_CFLAGS, or set:
>> >
>> > DEBUG_CFLAGS_remove = "-gno-record-debug-prefix-map"
>> >
>> > to avoid problems. I'm not sure making it conditional in some way
>> > is
>> > any better than just using the above line.
>>
>> Got it, I will do it in V4.
>
> I think we should try and see if the the gcc patch would be accepted
> upstream.

yes they are fine as such should be sent upstream. but please open a
gcc bugzilla entry
to track it

 Meanwhile, if we default to turning this on in our compilers,
> much of this issue goes away as Phil mentions.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>
>