* [google gcc-4_7, integration] Build more of libstdc++ with frame pointers
@ 2013-02-27 20:13 Paul Pluzhnikov
2013-02-27 20:14 ` Diego Novillo
2013-02-27 20:17 ` Andrew Pinski
0 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Paul Pluzhnikov @ 2013-02-27 20:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dnovillo, gcc-patches; +Cc: ppluzhnikov
Greetings,
Google ref b/8187733
Build libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/debug.cc with -fno-omit-frame-pointer, so
frame-based unwinder can step through it.
Tested: bootstrap build and verified debug.cc is built with
-fno-omit-frame-pointer.
Ok for google/gcc-4_7 and google/integration?
Thanks,
--
Paul Pluzhnikov
Index: libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/Makefile.am
===================================================================
--- libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/Makefile.am (revision 196316)
+++ libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/Makefile.am (working copy)
@@ -124,3 +124,4 @@
# Google-specific pessimization
functexcept.lo_no_omit_frame_pointer = -fno-omit-frame-pointer
+debug.lo_no_omit_frame_pointer = -fno-omit-frame-pointer
Index: libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/Makefile.in
===================================================================
--- libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/Makefile.in (revision 196316)
+++ libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/Makefile.in (working copy)
@@ -391,6 +391,7 @@
# Google-specific pessimization
functexcept.lo_no_omit_frame_pointer = -fno-omit-frame-pointer
+debug.lo_no_omit_frame_pointer = -fno-omit-frame-pointer
all: all-am
.SUFFIXES:
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [google gcc-4_7, integration] Build more of libstdc++ with frame pointers
2013-02-27 20:13 [google gcc-4_7, integration] Build more of libstdc++ with frame pointers Paul Pluzhnikov
@ 2013-02-27 20:14 ` Diego Novillo
2013-02-27 20:17 ` Andrew Pinski
1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Diego Novillo @ 2013-02-27 20:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Pluzhnikov; +Cc: gcc-patches
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov@google.com> wrote:
> Ok for google/gcc-4_7 and google/integration?
OK.
Diego.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [google gcc-4_7, integration] Build more of libstdc++ with frame pointers
2013-02-27 20:13 [google gcc-4_7, integration] Build more of libstdc++ with frame pointers Paul Pluzhnikov
2013-02-27 20:14 ` Diego Novillo
@ 2013-02-27 20:17 ` Andrew Pinski
2013-02-27 20:51 ` Paul Pluzhnikov
1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Pinski @ 2013-02-27 20:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Pluzhnikov; +Cc: dnovillo, gcc-patches
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Paul Pluzhnikov
<ppluzhnikov@google.com> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Google ref b/8187733
>
> Build libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/debug.cc with -fno-omit-frame-pointer, so
> frame-based unwinder can step through it.
Just an aside which program does not understand dwarf2 unwinding?
Perf is setup to understand it. Valgrind is setup to understand it.
ASAN should be setup to understand it.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> Tested: bootstrap build and verified debug.cc is built with
> -fno-omit-frame-pointer.
>
> Ok for google/gcc-4_7 and google/integration?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Paul Pluzhnikov
>
>
> Index: libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/Makefile.am
> ===================================================================
> --- libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/Makefile.am (revision 196316)
> +++ libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/Makefile.am (working copy)
> @@ -124,3 +124,4 @@
>
> # Google-specific pessimization
> functexcept.lo_no_omit_frame_pointer = -fno-omit-frame-pointer
> +debug.lo_no_omit_frame_pointer = -fno-omit-frame-pointer
> Index: libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/Makefile.in
> ===================================================================
> --- libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/Makefile.in (revision 196316)
> +++ libstdc++-v3/src/c++11/Makefile.in (working copy)
> @@ -391,6 +391,7 @@
>
> # Google-specific pessimization
> functexcept.lo_no_omit_frame_pointer = -fno-omit-frame-pointer
> +debug.lo_no_omit_frame_pointer = -fno-omit-frame-pointer
> all: all-am
>
> .SUFFIXES:
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [google gcc-4_7, integration] Build more of libstdc++ with frame pointers
2013-02-27 20:17 ` Andrew Pinski
@ 2013-02-27 20:51 ` Paul Pluzhnikov
2013-02-27 20:53 ` Jeff Law
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Paul Pluzhnikov @ 2013-02-27 20:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Pinski; +Cc: dnovillo, gcc-patches
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just an aside which program does not understand dwarf2 unwinding?
All Google executables currently link in a frame-based unwinder.
This allows us to report crashes and record runtime statistics from the
executable itself, in ways that are convenient when dealing with thousands
of executables spread across millions of machines, and which are much
harder to achieve using external tools.
There is of course libunwind, but it turns out that it's very hard to
beat speed and simplicity of a frame-based unwinder (which matters when
you collect stack traces across live production services).
I hope this answers your question.
--
Paul Pluzhnikov
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [google gcc-4_7, integration] Build more of libstdc++ with frame pointers
2013-02-27 20:51 ` Paul Pluzhnikov
@ 2013-02-27 20:53 ` Jeff Law
2013-02-27 21:46 ` Andrew Pinski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Law @ 2013-02-27 20:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Pluzhnikov; +Cc: Andrew Pinski, dnovillo, gcc-patches
On 02/27/2013 01:50 PM, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just an aside which program does not understand dwarf2 unwinding?
>
> All Google executables currently link in a frame-based unwinder.
>
> This allows us to report crashes and record runtime statistics from the
> executable itself, in ways that are convenient when dealing with thousands
> of executables spread across millions of machines, and which are much
> harder to achieve using external tools.
>
> There is of course libunwind, but it turns out that it's very hard to
> beat speed and simplicity of a frame-based unwinder (which matters when
> you collect stack traces across live production services).
>
> I hope this answers your question.
Or imagine something like trying to get traces out of low level
profilers and such. There are situations where dwarf2 unwinders are
just too damn bloated.
jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [google gcc-4_7, integration] Build more of libstdc++ with frame pointers
2013-02-27 20:53 ` Jeff Law
@ 2013-02-27 21:46 ` Andrew Pinski
2013-02-27 21:48 ` Jeff Law
2013-02-27 22:01 ` Paul Pluzhnikov
0 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Pinski @ 2013-02-27 21:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Law; +Cc: Paul Pluzhnikov, dnovillo, gcc-patches
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 02/27/2013 01:50 PM, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Just an aside which program does not understand dwarf2 unwinding?
>>
>>
>> All Google executables currently link in a frame-based unwinder.
>>
>> This allows us to report crashes and record runtime statistics from the
>> executable itself, in ways that are convenient when dealing with thousands
>> of executables spread across millions of machines, and which are much
>> harder to achieve using external tools.
>>
>> There is of course libunwind, but it turns out that it's very hard to
>> beat speed and simplicity of a frame-based unwinder (which matters when
>> you collect stack traces across live production services).
libunwind is not needed since there is already a dwarf2 based unwinder
that is accessible in libgcc already. I don't know why people still
promote libunwind when libgcc already has similar facilities.
>>
>> I hope this answers your question.
>
> Or imagine something like trying to get traces out of low level profilers
> and such. There are situations where dwarf2 unwinders are just too damn
> bloated.
Perf handles this by saving off some of the stack space instead and
then post-process it. This is why I said perf handles this case
already. Now oprofile does not but oprofile is really going away.
Thanks,
Andrew
>
> jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [google gcc-4_7, integration] Build more of libstdc++ with frame pointers
2013-02-27 21:46 ` Andrew Pinski
@ 2013-02-27 21:48 ` Jeff Law
2013-02-27 22:01 ` Paul Pluzhnikov
1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Law @ 2013-02-27 21:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Pinski; +Cc: Paul Pluzhnikov, dnovillo, gcc-patches
On 02/27/2013 02:46 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Perf handles this by saving off some of the stack space instead and
> then post-process it. This is why I said perf handles this case
> already. Now oprofile does not but oprofile is really going away.
I'm well aware of how perf handles this, having had numerous discussions
with Red Hat's kernel team about this issue.
jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [google gcc-4_7, integration] Build more of libstdc++ with frame pointers
2013-02-27 21:46 ` Andrew Pinski
2013-02-27 21:48 ` Jeff Law
@ 2013-02-27 22:01 ` Paul Pluzhnikov
2013-02-28 1:52 ` Ian Lance Taylor
1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Paul Pluzhnikov @ 2013-02-27 22:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Pinski; +Cc: Jeff Law, dnovillo, gcc-patches
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
> libunwind is not needed since there is already a dwarf2 based unwinder
> that is accessible in libgcc already.
Last I checked, libgcc dwarf handling code called malloc, and thus wasn't
suitable when you want to instrument malloc *itself* to collect stack
traces, nor for SIGPROF profiling.
Is libgcc dwarf code async-signal safe now?
If not, will it ever be?
> I don't know why people still
> promote libunwind when libgcc already has similar facilities.
Because these facilities are not (or at least were not in the recent past)
suitable for the unwinder requirements that people have?
Thanks,
--
Paul Pluzhnikov
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [google gcc-4_7, integration] Build more of libstdc++ with frame pointers
2013-02-27 22:01 ` Paul Pluzhnikov
@ 2013-02-28 1:52 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2013-02-28 16:24 ` Paul Pluzhnikov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Ian Lance Taylor @ 2013-02-28 1:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Pluzhnikov; +Cc: Andrew Pinski, Jeff Law, dnovillo, gcc-patches
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov@google.com> wrote:
>
> Last I checked, libgcc dwarf handling code called malloc, and thus wasn't
> suitable when you want to instrument malloc *itself* to collect stack
> traces, nor for SIGPROF profiling.
>
> Is libgcc dwarf code async-signal safe now?
> If not, will it ever be?
I think that the libgcc unwinder only calls malloc if somebody calls
__register_frame_info. And in ordinary circumstances nobody ever
calls that. I don't think there is an malloc issue there. Unless
I've forgotten something.
I thought a more serious issue is that the libgcc unwinder has no way
of dealing with a corrupt stack--it will simply crash.
Ian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [google gcc-4_7, integration] Build more of libstdc++ with frame pointers
2013-02-28 1:52 ` Ian Lance Taylor
@ 2013-02-28 16:24 ` Paul Pluzhnikov
2013-02-28 17:28 ` Ian Lance Taylor
[not found] ` <CAAkRFZKKprv8ibFR+4WrMftzCa=hgurJGbmyTuhFDC9tNkgu6w@mail.gmail.com>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Paul Pluzhnikov @ 2013-02-28 16:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Lance Taylor; +Cc: Andrew Pinski, Jeff Law, dnovillo, gcc-patches
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote:
> I think that the libgcc unwinder only calls malloc if somebody calls
> __register_frame_info.
So I looked. Indeed it doesn't call malloc in our environment, but
does call dl_iterate_phdr, which is just as deadly.
To be fair, libunwind does that as well, and we have to provide a
workaround for that.
Still, out-of-the-box libgcc unwinder is not suitable for our unwind
requirements.
> I thought a more serious issue is that the libgcc unwinder has no way
> of dealing with a corrupt stack--it will simply crash.
That too ...
Thanks,
--
Paul Pluzhnikov
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [google gcc-4_7, integration] Build more of libstdc++ with frame pointers
2013-02-28 16:24 ` Paul Pluzhnikov
@ 2013-02-28 17:28 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2013-02-28 18:11 ` Paul Pluzhnikov
[not found] ` <CAAkRFZKKprv8ibFR+4WrMftzCa=hgurJGbmyTuhFDC9tNkgu6w@mail.gmail.com>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Ian Lance Taylor @ 2013-02-28 17:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Pluzhnikov; +Cc: Andrew Pinski, Jeff Law, dnovillo, gcc-patches
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov@google.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote:
>
>> I think that the libgcc unwinder only calls malloc if somebody calls
>> __register_frame_info.
>
> So I looked. Indeed it doesn't call malloc in our environment, but
> does call dl_iterate_phdr, which is just as deadly.
Hmmm, I guess I can't remember why. dl_iterate_phdr uses a recursive
lock so there shouldn't be any deadlock problem. If the problem is
the dynamic lookup of the dl_iterate_phdr symbol for lazy PLT
evaluation, that could be finessed by calling it beforehand.
Ian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [google gcc-4_7, integration] Build more of libstdc++ with frame pointers
2013-02-28 17:28 ` Ian Lance Taylor
@ 2013-02-28 18:11 ` Paul Pluzhnikov
2013-02-28 18:36 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2013-02-28 19:57 ` Cary Coutant
0 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Paul Pluzhnikov @ 2013-02-28 18:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Lance Taylor; +Cc: Andrew Pinski, Jeff Law, dnovillo, gcc-patches
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote:
>> does call dl_iterate_phdr, which is just as deadly.
>
> Hmmm, I guess I can't remember why.
Let me refresh your memory. You've seen this deadlock before:
Thread 1 Thread 2
dlopen malloc
... takes loader lock ... takes malloc lock
malloc _Unwind_Backtrace
... needs malloc lock dl_iterate_phdr
held by T2 ... needs loader lock held by T1
--
Paul Pluzhnikov
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [google gcc-4_7, integration] Build more of libstdc++ with frame pointers
2013-02-28 18:11 ` Paul Pluzhnikov
@ 2013-02-28 18:36 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2013-02-28 19:57 ` Cary Coutant
1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Ian Lance Taylor @ 2013-02-28 18:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Pluzhnikov; +Cc: Andrew Pinski, Jeff Law, dnovillo, gcc-patches
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Paul Pluzhnikov
<ppluzhnikov@google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote:
>
>>> does call dl_iterate_phdr, which is just as deadly.
>>
>> Hmmm, I guess I can't remember why.
>
> Let me refresh your memory. You've seen this deadlock before:
>
> Thread 1 Thread 2
> dlopen malloc
> ... takes loader lock ... takes malloc lock
> malloc _Unwind_Backtrace
> ... needs malloc lock dl_iterate_phdr
> held by T2 ... needs loader lock held by T1
Oh yeah. Thanks.
Ian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [google gcc-4_7, integration] Build more of libstdc++ with frame pointers
2013-02-28 18:11 ` Paul Pluzhnikov
2013-02-28 18:36 ` Ian Lance Taylor
@ 2013-02-28 19:57 ` Cary Coutant
2013-02-28 19:59 ` Jakub Jelinek
1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Cary Coutant @ 2013-02-28 19:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Pluzhnikov
Cc: Ian Lance Taylor, Andrew Pinski, Jeff Law, Diego Novillo, gcc-patches
> Thread 1 Thread 2
> dlopen malloc
> ... takes loader lock ... takes malloc lock
> malloc _Unwind_Backtrace
> ... needs malloc lock dl_iterate_phdr
> held by T2 ... needs loader lock held by T1
Am I missing something, or wouldn't it be feasible when instrumenting
malloc to call _Unwind_Backtrace before obtaining the malloc lock (or
drop the malloc lock while calling _Unwind_Backtrace)? Similarly,
couldn't dlopen drop the loader lock while calling malloc?
-cary
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [google gcc-4_7, integration] Build more of libstdc++ with frame pointers
2013-02-28 19:57 ` Cary Coutant
@ 2013-02-28 19:59 ` Jakub Jelinek
2013-02-28 22:04 ` Paul Pluzhnikov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Jakub Jelinek @ 2013-02-28 19:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Cary Coutant
Cc: Paul Pluzhnikov, Ian Lance Taylor, Andrew Pinski, Jeff Law,
Diego Novillo, gcc-patches
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:57:48AM -0800, Cary Coutant wrote:
> Similarly, couldn't dlopen drop the loader lock while calling malloc?
It can't, but perhaps it could call some alternative malloc instead
(the simpler malloc version in ld.so or similar).
Jakub
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [google gcc-4_7, integration] Build more of libstdc++ with frame pointers
[not found] ` <CAAkRFZKKprv8ibFR+4WrMftzCa=hgurJGbmyTuhFDC9tNkgu6w@mail.gmail.com>
@ 2013-02-28 21:50 ` Paul Pluzhnikov
0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Paul Pluzhnikov @ 2013-02-28 21:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Xinliang David Li
Cc: Ian Lance Taylor, Andrew Pinski, Jeff Law, Diego Novillo, GCC Patches
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
> Any insight about the relative performance of the two implementations?
We have a benchmark for the speed of unwinder. Here are results.
The number /1, /2, etc. is the number of levels in the stack trace.
Using frame-based unwinder:
Benchmark Time(ns) CPU(ns) Iterations
----------------------------------------------------
BM_GetStackTrace/1 29 29 24137931
BM_GetStackTrace/2 38 38 17948718
BM_GetStackTrace/3 43 44 16279070
BM_GetStackTrace/4 57 57 10000000
BM_GetStackTrace/5 62 62 10000000
BM_GetStackTrace/6 65 65 10000000
BM_GetStackTrace/7 65 64 10000000
BM_GetStackTrace/8 65 65 10000000
BM_GetStackTrace/9 65 65 10000000
BM_GetStackTrace/10 65 65 10000000
Using libgcc:
Benchmark Time(ns) CPU(ns) Iterations
----------------------------------------------------
BM_GetStackTrace/1 1543 1543 466667
BM_GetStackTrace/2 2042 2057 350000
BM_GetStackTrace/3 2378 2366 291667
BM_GetStackTrace/4 2754 2720 250000
BM_GetStackTrace/5 3212 3200 218750
BM_GetStackTrace/6 3655 3651 194444
BM_GetStackTrace/7 4039 4000 175000
BM_GetStackTrace/8 4009 4000 175000
BM_GetStackTrace/9 4002 4000 175000
BM_GetStackTrace/10 4017 4000 175000
Using libunwind:
Benchmark Time(ns) CPU(ns) Iterations
----------------------------------------------------
BM_GetStackTrace/1 109 108 6363636
BM_GetStackTrace/2 121 122 5833333
BM_GetStackTrace/3 130 130 5000000
BM_GetStackTrace/4 133 132 5000000
BM_GetStackTrace/5 148 148 4666667
BM_GetStackTrace/6 162 162 4375000
BM_GetStackTrace/7 174 175 4117647
BM_GetStackTrace/8 185 185 3888889
BM_GetStackTrace/9 188 187 3684211
BM_GetStackTrace/10 188 187 3684211
Conclusions:
- frame based unwinder is hard to beat (re-confirmed :-)
- libunwind is getting really close at 3x the overhead
- libgcc is nowhere close at 50x.
--
Paul Pluzhnikov
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [google gcc-4_7, integration] Build more of libstdc++ with frame pointers
2013-02-28 19:59 ` Jakub Jelinek
@ 2013-02-28 22:04 ` Paul Pluzhnikov
0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Paul Pluzhnikov @ 2013-02-28 22:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jakub Jelinek
Cc: Cary Coutant, Ian Lance Taylor, Andrew Pinski, Jeff Law,
Diego Novillo, gcc-patches
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:57:48AM -0800, Cary Coutant wrote:
>> Similarly, couldn't dlopen drop the loader lock while calling malloc?
>
> It can't, but perhaps it could call some alternative malloc instead
> (the simpler malloc version in ld.so or similar).
ld-linux starts calling the simpler malloc in dl-minimal.c, then switches to
"real" libc.so.6 malloc later on.
This behavior causes a lot of pain to anyone who tries to interpose malloc
and use dlsym(RTLD_NEXT,...) or similar from the interposer.
Roland explained to me ~15 years ago why it is that way (it had something to
do with Hurd); an explanation I can't find at the moment.
--
Paul Pluzhnikov
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-02-28 22:04 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-02-27 20:13 [google gcc-4_7, integration] Build more of libstdc++ with frame pointers Paul Pluzhnikov
2013-02-27 20:14 ` Diego Novillo
2013-02-27 20:17 ` Andrew Pinski
2013-02-27 20:51 ` Paul Pluzhnikov
2013-02-27 20:53 ` Jeff Law
2013-02-27 21:46 ` Andrew Pinski
2013-02-27 21:48 ` Jeff Law
2013-02-27 22:01 ` Paul Pluzhnikov
2013-02-28 1:52 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2013-02-28 16:24 ` Paul Pluzhnikov
2013-02-28 17:28 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2013-02-28 18:11 ` Paul Pluzhnikov
2013-02-28 18:36 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2013-02-28 19:57 ` Cary Coutant
2013-02-28 19:59 ` Jakub Jelinek
2013-02-28 22:04 ` Paul Pluzhnikov
[not found] ` <CAAkRFZKKprv8ibFR+4WrMftzCa=hgurJGbmyTuhFDC9tNkgu6w@mail.gmail.com>
2013-02-28 21:50 ` Paul Pluzhnikov
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).