This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: BUG: GCC-4.4.x changes the function frame on some functions
- From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt at goodmis dot org>
- To: Ingo Molnar <mingo at elte dot hu>
- Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds at linux-foundation dot org>, Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix dot de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa at zytor dot com>, LKML <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, Andrew Morton <akpm at linux-foundation dot org>, Heiko Carstens <heiko dot carstens at de dot ibm dot com>, feng dot tang at intel dot com, Fr??d??ric Weisbecker <fweisbec at gmail dot com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead dot org>, jakub at redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:06:54 -0500
- Subject: Re: BUG: GCC-4.4.x changes the function frame on some functions
- References: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0911181933540.24119@localhost.localdomain> <tip-887a29f59b93cf54e21814869a4ab6e80b6fa623@git.kernel.org> <20091119072040.GA23579@elte.hu> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0911191053390.24119@localhost.localdomain> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0911191423190.24119@localhost.localdomain> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0911191607440.24119@localhost.localdomain> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0911190934070.2793@localhost.localdomain> <1258653562.22249.682.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <84fc9c000911191003t244eb864o3d5b355ab5485f@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0911191026420.2793@localhost.localdomain> <20091119184716.GA25458@elte.hu>
- Reply-to: rostedt at goodmis dot org
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 19:47 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > Admittedly, anybody who compiles with -pg probably doesn't care deeply
> > about smaller and more efficient code, since the mcount call overhead
> > tends to make the thing moot anyway, but it really looks like a
> > win-win situation to just fix the mcount call sequence regardless.
>
> Just a sidenote: due to dyn-ftrace, which patches out all mcounts during
> bootup to be NOPs (and opt-in patches them in again if someone runs the
> function tracer), the cost is not as large as one would have it with say
> -pg based user-space profiling.
>
> It's not completely zero-cost as the pure NOPs balloon the i$ footprint
> a bit and GCC generates different code too in some cases. But it's
> certainly good enough that it's generally pretty hard to prove overhead
> via micro or macro benchmarks that the patched out mcounts call sites
> are there.
And frame pointers do add a little overhead as well. Too bad the mcount
ABI wasn't something like this:
<function>:
call mcount
[...]
This way, the function address for mcount would have been (%esp) and the
parent address would be 4(%esp). Mcount would work without frame
pointers and this whole mess would also become moot.
-- Steve