Re: [RFA patch] PR18749: epilogue not tracked in dwarf2 unwind-info

[Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>]

Hi,

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, Mike Stump wrote:

> On Jun 14, 2006, at 6:28 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> > So, question is: do we want to pay the prize in .eh_frame size for
> > backtraces from the epilogue?
> 
> Not by default I think.  What do you think about using:
> 
> @item -fasynchronous-unwind-tables
> @opindex fasynchronous-unwind-tables
> Generate unwind table in dwarf2 format, if supported by target machine.  The
> table is exact at each instruction boundary, so it can be used for stack
> unwinding from asynchronous events (such as debugger or garbage collector).
> 
> to control this?  Seems like a reasonable enough match to me.

To me too (and x86-64 activates this by default already).  Actually
without any patch tracking CFA in epilogues the description of that option
is even clearly wrong.  I'll redo the patch to be conditional on that 
option.


Ciao,
Michael.