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.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature