--- Comment #6 from mh+gcc at glandium dot org 2010-03-02 17:56 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > So, in case I build with -g, I can just use -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables
> > safely ?
>
> Yes it is safe but not recommended though. I should mention the x86_64
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-02 17:52 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> So, in case I build with -g, I can just use -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables
> safely ?
Yes it is safe but not recommended though. I should mention the x86_64 elf ABI
requires this section
--- Comment #4 from mh+gcc at glandium dot org 2010-03-02 17:48 ---
> Because it can be used for the backtrace when debugging. Without a frame
> pointer on x86/x86_64, you cannot get a real backtrace without unwinding info.
So, in case I build with -g, I can just use -fno-asynchronous-
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-02 17:40 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > That's because x86-64 defaults to -fasynchronous-unwind-tables. You really
> > want that by default on x86_64, as frame pointer is usually omitted.
>
> Why wo
--- Comment #2 from mh+gcc at glandium dot org 2010-03-02 17:37 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> That's because x86-64 defaults to -fasynchronous-unwind-tables. You really
> want that by default on x86_64, as frame pointer is usually omitted.
Why would you want -fasynchronous-unwind-tabl
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-02 15:43 ---
That's because x86-64 defaults to -fasynchronous-unwind-tables. You really
want that by default on x86_64, as frame pointer is usually omitted.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
