Matthias Clasen wrote:
> I am coming a bit late to this discussion, but I would like to inject the
> viewpoint that 'performance' (however defined)
> isn't the only criterion by which we should just judge what Fedora
> produces. At least for Fedora Workstation, being
> a useful system for developers with working debugging and profiling tools
> should have some weight too.
But we *have* "working debugging and profiling tools" with -fomit-frame-
pointer. (In fact, as I already mentioned, this is the criterion for GCC to
enable it by default under -O2 at all.)
What we have is *one* profiling tool (perf) in a very specific configuration
(continuous profiling in production) that cannot deal with it in a way that
the users consider acceptable. (As I understand it, perf *can* call back
into user space to do DWARF unwinding, it is just that doing that all the
time, on a production machine, has too high overhead to be useful.) That
does not mean that we are stuck with no "working debugging and profiling
tools". There would have been a huge outcry years ago when GCC made this
change if that were the case.
What I see here is a single Fedora-using corporation attempting to use their
lobbying power as a huge corporation to force a change on all Fedora users
that ultimately benefits only that one corporation at everyone else's
expense.
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
