From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 24565385735A; Wed, 23 Aug 2023 20:57:32 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 24565385735A DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1692824252; bh=J98RswgFWXTthdBx1TtkYwjV2BBW1PuH9AiNoLPvjDk=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=E9HgyGDAn72bkiOkzo6B2OqytEUANpzzro7h8iLba/59+JLJhja2ilbZTSbLqX6LI o5ZidNZdAun+Ubw4HbRYn56xJqYbrm0seh7clNV/KQN/snhfvZ53vD99SQAQOKSfHn Wj9Uo/yM892CeRbtuNDtUyQO8nonWdsqZ5V/WKlU= From: "tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/111096] Frame pointer is not used even when -fomit-frame-pointer is specified Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2023 20:57:31 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: WONTFIX X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D111096 --- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #5) > This was a deliberate design choice. Although the frame chain is not set= up > by code that omits the frame pointer, the chain of frames that are set up= by > other functions is still valid this way. This ensures that any code that > does try to walk the frame chain will not crash. If we reused the frame > pointer for other purposes, then any code trying to walk the frame chain = (eg > backtrace()) would encounter an invalid record and likely crash. Would it make sense to document this somewhere? Or did I just miss it? :-)=