Daan De Meyer via devel wrote:
> Which shows a smaller than 1% slowdown between the binary built with frame
> pointers and the binary built without frame pointers.
Still 1% too many just to work around broken debugging tools when DWARF
unwinding has been available for years and is already supported by many
tools. (GCC would not default to -fomit-frame-pointer on -O2 otherwise. It
does not do that on platforms where frame pointers are really needed for
debugging.)
And what is the impact on code size? In my experience, -fomit-frame-pointer
also generates smaller code than -fno-omit-frame-pointer, so I would like to
see the sizes in your test cases.
I am still strongly opposed to degrading performance and size for all users
just to help the handful users of poorly-designed profiling tools.
Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
