https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97902
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9) > (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. You can't do backtracing with inlining (well, you'll lose those frames). Here one of the callers will have a correct frame and backtracing still works, no? > > 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. ? I don't think that's good. It's perfectly valid with optimization. One could spec a -fforce-frame-pointer but then one needs to define what its guarantee is.
