On 23.02.2018 16:27, Maxime Villard wrote:
> 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.)
> Maxime

I've not researched it so far, but OpenBSD uses libctf in their DDB.
This is good for at least unwinding structures.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to