On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 6:21 AM, Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Michael Matz <m...@suse.de> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, 7 Aug 2017, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 9:40 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > When there is no stack access, there is no need to use frame pointer
>>> > even if -fno-omit-frame-pointer is used.
>>> >
>>> > Tested on i686 and x86-64. OK for trunk?
>>>
>>> LGTM.
>>
>> This will break unwinders relying on frame pointers to exist on all
>> functions, for which projects conciously forced a frame pointer with this
>> option. I don't think we can simply override user specified explicit
>> wishes in this way, presumably they had a reason to use it.
>
> Hm... yes, you are right.
>
> HJ, please revert the patch.
>
Is there a testcae? I'd like to add it.
FWIW,
[hjl@gnu-tools-1 pr81736]$ cat x.i
extern int i;
int
foo (void)
{
return i;
}
[hjl@gnu-tools-1 pr81736]$ clang -S -O2 -fno-omit-frame-pointer x.i
[hjl@gnu-tools-1 pr81736]$ cat x.s
.text
.file "x.i"
.globl foo
.p2align 4, 0x90
.type foo,@function
foo: # @foo
.cfi_startproc
# BB#0:
movl i(%rip), %eax
retq
.Lfunc_end0:
.size foo, .Lfunc_end0-foo
.cfi_endproc
.ident "clang version 4.0.0 (tags/RELEASE_400/final)"
.section ".note.GNU-stack","",@progbits
[hjl@gnu-tools-1 pr81736]$
Does it mean clang is broken?
--
H.J.
