https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97902
H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jan Smets from comment #13)
> 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 :-)
Please open a new bug for a new option to disable all optimizations which
may skip frame pointer.
