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: Variable tracking (location lists support) - part 1

From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
To: law at redhat dot com
Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk>, Josef Zlomek <zlomj9am at artax dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:14:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Variable tracking (location lists support) - part 1
References: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0401291957130.23288@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <200401292010.i0TKA7rI008229@speedy.slc.redhat.com>
Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>

On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 01:10:07PM -0700, law@redhat.com wrote:
>  >Does this mean that some targets that didn't previously should now have
>  >-fomit-frame-pointer enabled at -O?  (The documentation saying
>  >"@option{-O} also turns on @option{-fomit-frame-pointer} on machines where
>  >doing so does not interfere with debugging.".)
> That would be a significant step forward -- being able to turn on FP
> elimination for ia32 is probably the easiest way to get a measureable
> performance improvement I can think of :-)

Shouldn't we emit -fasynchronous-unwind-tables in that case by default
as well, so that routines like backtrace have a chance of working?

	Jakub

References:
- Re: Variable tracking (location lists support) - part 1
  - From: Joseph S. Myers
- Re: Variable tracking (location lists support) - part 1
  - From: law

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