[PATCH v2] gas: support --gsframe=no

[Sam James]

Indu Bhagat <indu.bhagat@oracle.com> writes:

> On 7/11/25 9:45 AM, Sam James wrote:
>> Being able to explicitly disable SFrames on the command line is useful,
>> especially when looking at a gas that enables SFrames by default. The
>> binutils testsuite will benefit from this as there's testcases that don't
>> expect their presence.
>> 	PR gas/33125
>> 	* gas/as.c (parse_args): Accept --gsframe=no, --gsframe=yes.
>> ---
>> v2: Make clear what the default is and tweak help text.
>> 
>
> One comment below for the help text for default.
>
>> (Note: I do have another patch for controlling the default, but that
>> will come later with testsuite adjustments and it exposed some bugs
>> that Indu is looking at.)
>>   gas/as.c | 15 ++++++++++++---
>>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> diff --git a/gas/as.c b/gas/as.c
>> index 78970ff2714..5c56e0fd7eb 100644
>> --- a/gas/as.c
>> +++ b/gas/as.c
>> @@ -311,7 +311,8 @@ Options:\n\
>>     fprintf (stream, _("\
>>                             generate GNU Build notes if none are present in the input\n"));
>>     fprintf (stream, _("\
>> -  --gsframe               generate SFrame stack trace information\n"));
>> +  --gsframe=[no|yes]      whether to generate SFrame stack trace information\n\
>> +                          (default: no)\n"));
>
> (default: yes)

The default is no if you pass nothing, but the default is yes if
you pass --gsframe..

In my other (yet-unposted) patch to allow default-enabling of SFrames
via configure, I make the 'no' dependent on whatever I chose at
configure-time.

If we interpret the 'default: XXX' value as being "what does --gsframe
do", then in that case, it'll always say no, I think?

WDYT?

> [...]

sam