--- Comment #11 from Wilco <wilco at gcc dot> ---
(In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #10)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> > Is the requirement just for functions that contain setjmp?  If so, the
> > backend could just force frame pointers in cfun->calls_setjmp functions.
> I think we should flip back fno-omit-frame-pointer on for gcc-8 as that
> breaks the guarantee that we've had in the port for quite a while. I'm
> testing a patch currently that I will get out first thing tomorrow to turn
> this back on.
> If we want to turn it off that should be a conscious decision.
> > 
> > If not, even if the default is tweaked again to be -fno-omit-frame-pointer
> > on aarch64, the code is still wrong with explicit -fno-omit-frame-pointer,
> > even before that change.
> I think we should treat that as a separate but related issue.
> Ramana

The code is clearly incorrect even with the frame pointer is enabled, so this
has absolutely nothing to do with the frame pointer default. Like the eh_return
builtin, the implementation of these builtins is incorrect with or without a
frame pointer (and apparently has always been).

Reply via email to