https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88917
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #3) > Isn't -fasynchronous-unwind-tables part of the GNU/Linux ABI and enabled by > default? Without it, asynchronous cancellation does not work. Yes, but nobody is actually using or should use -mindirect-branch=thunk-inline, we really shouldn't offer that option, and if somebody for some strange reason uses it, he could as well add -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables. > Can we simplify this if we require frame pointers when using inline thunks? No. > Or get rid of inline thunks altogether? I'm all for this. I fail to see any advantage of that over non-inline thunks, that do have proper unwind info and are smaller from cache POV.
