Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261328AbTFCVI3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jun 2003 17:08:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261562AbTFCVI3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jun 2003 17:08:29 -0400 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([212.18.232.186]:1290 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261328AbTFCVI2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jun 2003 17:08:28 -0400 Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 22:21:52 +0100 From: Russell King To: "J.A. Magallon" Cc: Lista Linux-Kernel , davidm@hpl.hp.com Subject: Re: no-omit-frame-pointer for sched.c in 2.4-i386 Message-ID: <20030603222152.A18010@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mail-Followup-To: "J.A. Magallon" , Lista Linux-Kernel , davidm@hpl.hp.com References: <20030603210617.GE3661@werewolf.able.es> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20030603210617.GE3661@werewolf.able.es>; from jamagallon@able.es on Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 11:06:17PM +0200 X-Message-Flag: Your copy of Microsoft Outlook is vulnerable to viruses. See www.mutt.org for more details. Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1742 Lines: 42 On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 11:06:17PM +0200, J.A. Magallon wrote: > Hi all... > > Any body knows if this still applies: > > kernel/Makefile > > ifneq ($(CONFIG_IA64),y) > # According to Alan Modra , the -fno-omit-frame-pointer is > # needed for x86 only. Why this used to be enabled for all architectures is beyond > # me. I suspect most platforms don't need this, but until we know that for sure > # I turn this off for IA-64 only. Andreas Schwab says it's also needed on m68k > # to get a correct value for the wait-channel (WCHAN in ps). --davidm > CFLAGS_sched.o := $(PROFILING) -fno-omit-frame-pointer > endif This comment is not accurate. It's also needed for ARM so that it can use the framepointer to walk up the frame pointer list to discovered where we called schedule from (excluding such stuff as the semaphore implementation.) Actually, come to think of it, I suspect its buggy today anyway; GCC 3 has some interesting "features" in that -fno-omit-frame-pointer does not mean it will not omit it. Certainly on ARM, we need extra options to ensure that GCC outputs the frame in a parseable manner. So yes, something _like_ this is needed. Maybe the right solution would be to do something like: CFLAGS_sched.o := $(EXTRA_CALLTRACE_FLAGS) and architectures can define EXTRA_CALLTRACE_FLAGS appropriately. -- Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/