Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030191AbVIIJi6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Sep 2005 05:38:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030198AbVIIJi6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Sep 2005 05:38:58 -0400 Received: from public.id2-vpn.continvity.gns.novell.com ([195.33.99.129]:7701 "EHLO emea1-mh.id2.novell.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030191AbVIIJi5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Sep 2005 05:38:57 -0400 Message-Id: <4321749202000078000248C5@emea1-mh.id2.novell.com> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 7.0 Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:40:02 +0200 From: "Jan Beulich" To: "Andi Kleen" Cc: , Subject: Re: [discuss] [PATCH] allow CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER for x86-64 References: <43207D28020000780002451E@emea1-mh.id2.novell.com> <200509091054.11932.ak@suse.de> <43216EFB020000780002489B@emea1-mh.id2.novell.com> <200509091123.59205.ak@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <200509091123.59205.ak@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 497 Lines: 14 > But why would anyone want frame pointers on x86-64? I'd put the question differently: Why should x86-64 not allow what other architectures do? But of course, I'm not insisting on this patch to get in, it just seemed an obvious inconsistency... Jan - 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/