This is the mail archive of the 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: Enable -fomit-frame-pointer on i386

> > Jan Hubicka writes:
> >  > Hi,
> >  > in the case we are taking seriuosly the switch to omitting frame pointer this
> >  > time, I think we shall do it earlier than later.  This patch imitate what
> >  > x86-64 does already so there shall not be too many showstoppers.
> >  > I verified that with current CVS gdb I can debug without problems.
> >  > (most of older GDBs segfaults when seeing location lists)
> >  > 
> >  > Bootstrapped/regtested i386, OK?
> > 
> > Does this break backtrace() in glibc?
> Unforutnately yes, see my other mail.  I would suggest to simply copy
> around the x86-64 backtrace implementation, I have it on my machine for
> a while and it works.
> The dependence in between libjava and glibc would be very anoying
> tought.  Perhaps we can simply replace use of backtrace() in libjava by
> the Jakub's unwind based implementation to break the dependency on
> targets where unwind info shall be available (ia-64/x86-64/i386/s390 at
> least)
> I am just running the testsuite to see if and how many testsuite
> regressions it will bring.

OK, the testing has passed with no regression finaly, but I guess it is
not good idea to keep the tree silently broken on older glibcs.
The sollution with adding -fno-omit-frame-pointer looks like good idea
to me.

> Honza
> > 
> > Andrew.

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