From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt1-x82a.google.com (mail-qt1-x82a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82a]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 104773858024 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 2021 14:38:05 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 104773858024 Received: by mail-qt1-x82a.google.com with SMTP id h7so1612676qtx.3 for ; Thu, 01 Apr 2021 07:38:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=aczugrFzfmob79UbT7wyRh4UjRvh5AuC1ff17jO05aY=; b=rF8vUC6qtUY3XqKyeMNFdq33ruodDBwoACC7l/eMuc8LAKxZo4T/S9T2cHD+xscNQJ FGayykGnSbiB/iOijSXBgtU3r44B8LJS7xaKz4Xz/KpJTN8hULDZMW1IqWUHZvsoHZDv 31/4Ug4zDnP8p3fbDMIQ/3hmE3WUkQaU1DfBWzpnYuAZx74ES8I89YR/51bDNWSqVxqf S4U5OhoAyr12aZN+91oSsQFvoaBemFj+PGJSrcpvKcq0hryIqHhoJza2tvwRAhReISJd 9ZPz/+HMpaVAojz0NDO6qU8Z0MBt/o3O+UWwYKF58stsBeXYcsGXwwbJwYeUGV/ZNaJ4 XXFg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531Nrw3hOu+DwSyVFfcaSCX1jou2aD1QWpVbAamFV/PJ0tVYaCYZ 9OYBAhIE7aO9VlUQPOvUcl2nIoi+Fwd+o5wV X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJymxiarhGfXbYaM6RhuhtP10UeGJUCGmdDmcGC2iwup5GeWBeenWoBHIN2+CrAlBvwEtaP6xA== X-Received: by 2002:aed:2010:: with SMTP id 16mr7355984qta.256.1617287884450; Thu, 01 Apr 2021 07:38:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.132] ([177.194.41.149]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h7sm4004432qkk.41.2021.04.01.07.38.02 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 01 Apr 2021 07:38:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Q: -fno-omit-frame-pointer To: Oleg Smolsky , Libc-help References: From: Adhemerval Zanella Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 11:38:01 -0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: libc-help@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-help mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2021 14:38:09 -0000 On 31/03/2021 18:23, Oleg Smolsky via Libc-help wrote: > Folks, what is the default for x88-64 builds w.r.t. the frame pointers? (I > think it's "off"). I couldn't find a configure.ac option to tweak that... > yet it's easy to force via CFLAGS. > > Is glibc known to work with the frame pointers? Does the test suite cover > whatever kinks come from forcing that via CFLAGS? > We use the compiler and cflags default with exception of some specific objects (and to which I am not it is strictly required, the exception based mechanism on most architectures are done through libgcc and dwarf unwind). At least for i386, we fixed some issues to build with -fno-omit-frame-pointer (BZ#21029). Afaik gcc 4.6 set to -fomit-frame-pointer as default, but I am not sure if it is enforced on all architectures.