On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 2:23 PM, ron minnich <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Kevin O'Connor <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 01:01:41PM -0700, ron minnich wrote: >>> are the payloads built with omit frame pointer? >>> >>> it's not a good thing if we have to sync how payloads are built with >>> how coreboot is built. >> >> SeaBIOS does use -fomit-frame-pointer (enabling it provides noticably >> better code generation). However, I don't think this is related to >> the payload at all. The frame-pointer option controls what gcc puts >> into %ebp, and SeaBIOS doesn't care at all what's in that register >> when it is launched. > > yes, we may still be looking at a symptom of a different problem
Maybe we should be asking for successes instead of failures. Has anyone been able to boot any payload with v2 and -fomit-frame-pointer? Thanks, Myles -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
