This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: m68k bootstrapping broken
- From: Richard Zidlicky <rz at linux-m68k dot org>
- To: Bernardo Innocenti <bernie at develer dot com>
- Cc: Gunther Nikl <gni at gecko dot de>, Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>,Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, gcc at gnu dot org,gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 23:43:15 +0100
- Subject: Re: m68k bootstrapping broken
- References: <3FFE1E6A.8030304@develer.com> <20040109214753.GA6321@linux-m68k.org> <400069E6.5080301@develer.com> <20040110173359.A3722@redhat.com> <4000EE16.9020907@develer.com> <20040111145603.GA5311@linux-m68k.org> <m3hdz26ycf.fsf@whitebox.m5r.de> <m3d69q6xju.fsf@whitebox.m5r.de> <20040113142341.GA59670@lorien.int.gecko.de> <400469C9.9020801@develer.com>
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:57:29PM +0100, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> By the way, do you also agree that -fomit-frame-pointer is always
> a win on m68k? AFAIK, gdb handles it correctly and all
> -fomit-frame-pointer bugs should have been fixed.
I have gdb-6.0 here and dont see how it does work, although
I would be really glad if baktrace would work. Compiling stuff
with "-gdwarf-2 -g3" - am I missing something?
> My proposal is to switch m68k to imply -fomit-frame-pointer with
> -O. Of course, I think we're too late for 3.4, so it will have
> to be postponed even if we all agree.
it would be -O2 if at all.
For m68k-linux it has the additional side effect of enforcing
a stricter interpretaion of our slightly unusual a0/d0/fp0 abi
so it wont be so good to have this as default.
Richard