On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: TL> Dmitry Morozovsky wrote: TL> [ ... -fomit-frame-pointer ... ] TL> > Yes, Terry, I'd read this note. However, it does not clarify for me which TL> > exactly functionality is lost with omitting this. TL> > TL> > I tried to build some binaries with -fomit..., then tried to debug it a TL> > bit, and gdb shows me both backtrace stack and arguments, so I was in TL> > doubt a bit -- so here is my question ;-) TL> TL> Try it again on a SPARC or other RISC machine that pushes TL> register window frames on the stack after a certain function TL> call depth is achieved. TL> TL> I was pretty sure at one time that the PPC platform had a TL> variant of this problem, as well.
Well, this clarifies much more than I test -- the only platform I tried to check this was i386. TL> If you want a definative answer, then the people to ask are TL> the GCC implementors, who put the option into the compiler TL> for a reason, and added the descriptive text to the .info TL> file in the first place. I didn't doubt it ;-) TL> Realize that this is a GCC issue, not a FreeBSD issue. What's the issue? Existence of -fomit... option? ;-) Actually, I was not specific enough in my initial question. It should sound something like: I presume building FreeBSD RELENG_4 world on i386 with -fomit-frame-pointer may lead to some undesired effects. But I neither found them in my (not so deep though) tests nor read info about it except GCC-info's note that you cite. 8-12% of code efficiency is not too small... Sincerely, D.Marck [DM5020, DM268-RIPE, DM3-RIPN] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
