This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: builtin_return_addr vs frame_pointer_needed vs -O3
- From: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Cc: ian at beware dot dropbear dot id dot au, dj at redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 17:09:56 +0200
- Subject: Re: builtin_return_addr vs frame_pointer_needed vs -O3
- References: <200101312226.RAA29943@greed.delorie.com><20010131170452.A13854@redhat.com><15641.30554.720720.529367@gargle.gargle.HOWL><20020626074538.C25683@redhat.com>
Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> writes:
|> *shrug* Perhaps. My thought had been that just because this
|> translation unit uses flag_omit_frame_pointer doesn't mean
|> that the calling translation unit did. But on the other hand
|> I suppose it's a relatively safe assumption that the entire
|> application is compiled with the same cflags.
I don't think this is safe. Libraries also become part of the
application, but they are usually compiled in a different environment.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux AG, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."