This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: S/390: Default to -fasynchronous-unwind-tables

From: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>,Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich dot Weigand at de dot ibm dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org,Gerhard Tonn <TON at de dot ibm dot com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 23:55:31 +0100
Subject: Re: S/390: Default to -fasynchronous-unwind-tables
References: <OF48319429.AEAA08BE-ONC1256C72.005CCFEC@de.ibm.com> <20021115191310.GA14558@nevyn.them.org> <20021119222850.GF9962@redhat.com>

> On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 02:13:10PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > Should we be thinking about doing this on more architectures?  It would
> > be nice to use this in preference to the terrifying MIPS-specific
> > unwinder, for instance...
> 
> No.  Nor should it have been done for s390 IMO.  Who cares if
> you can't get a backtrace without debug information?

It is told to be important for garbage collectors used by JITs and
similar tricks.

Honza
> 
> > How bad is the space penalty,
> 
> > ... and is there a way to mark EH tables as
> > removable if they're only needed for debugging (vs. for -fexceptions)?
> 
> Duh, no.  That's what .debug_frame is for -- debugging.
> 
> 
> r~

References:
- S/390: Default to -fasynchronous-unwind-tables
  - From: Ulrich Weigand
- Re: S/390: Default to -fasynchronous-unwind-tables
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz
- Re: S/390: Default to -fasynchronous-unwind-tables
  - From: Richard Henderson

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]