Le 23/02/2018 à 15:37, Joerg Sonnenberger a écrit :
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 03:35:02PM +0100, Maxime Villard wrote:
Le 23/02/2018 à 15:07, Maxime Villard a écrit :
Then figure out why not. Placing random pessimisation options all over
the place is wrong.

And also, could you expand a little bit about what is inherently wrong with
putting -fno-shrink-wrap on CFLAGS and not DEFCOPTS?

The only valid reason for wanting -fno-shrink-wrap is to work around the
broken unwind logic in DDB. If you don't use or care about DDB, there is
no reason to want it. This is the same as with -fno-omit-frame-pointer.
It just increases code size and slows things down.

Well... Yes. But we do have -fno-omit-frame-pointer, because we do care about
DDB. So why not put -fno-shrink-wrap along the way? This one does not increase
the code size, it just pushes the frame a little earlier. (I don't see how
this is specific to DEFCOPTS, by the way.)


Reply via email to