https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97902
Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot
gnu.org
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #9 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #8)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7)
> > Can you please H.J. take a look?
> > Maybe we can add a param that will drive the beviour?
>
> I consider this optimization similar inlining or tail call.
How is that related? I don't see the connection in behavior.
> Should
> -fno-omit-frame-pointer disable them?
I would prefer to revert the patch 8e941ae950ddce1745b4d6819a7131908dd7de24.
The reporter requested to preserve the frame pointer (with
-fno-omit-frame-pointer) for backtracing capability and we optimized it out.
What do you think H.J. ?
