https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97902
--- Comment #13 from Jan Smets <jan.smets at nokia dot com> --- H.J, There are still some very basic backtrace implementations that rely on frame pointers. (No DWARF based things or any other forms of 'assistance'). A missing stack frame means the "previous" function is not visible in the trace. That makes it fairly useless. We do explicitly disable a (partial)inlining, sibling calls, use -fno-omit-frame-pointer and -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer. The latter two options makes someone (perhaps incorrectly) assume that frame pointers are not being omitted. I understand, technically, they're not being omitted because there is no stack usage to begin with... If a new option -fforce-frame-pointer is what is required, then so be it, but I personally think it just adds more confusion on what (no-)omit-frame-(leaf-)pointer does. All I want are stack frames :-)
