* Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 10:26:12PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > This patch gives arches more freedom on overwriting CFLAGS, specifically
> > > on PowerPC we want to remove -fno-omit-frame-pointer flag.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > Makefile | 4 ++--
> > > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> > > index 7715b2c..d1ba93f 100644
> > > --- a/Makefile
> > > +++ b/Makefile
> > > @@ -525,8 +525,6 @@ else
> > > KBUILD_CFLAGS += -O2
> > > endif
> > >
> > > -include $(srctree)/arch/$(SRCARCH)/Makefile
> > > -
> > > ifneq (CONFIG_FRAME_WARN,0)
> > > KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option,-Wframe-larger-than=${CONFIG_FRAME_WARN})
> > > endif
> > > @@ -555,6 +553,8 @@ ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_SECTION_MISMATCH
> > > KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option, -fno-inline-functions-called-once)
> > > endif
> > >
> > > +include $(srctree)/arch/$(SRCARCH)/Makefile
> > > +
> > > # arch Makefile may override CC so keep this after arch Makefile is included
> > > NOSTDINC_FLAGS += -nostdinc -isystem $(shell $(CC) -print-file-name=include)
> > > CHECKFLAGS += $(NOSTDINC_FLAGS)
> > > --
> >
> > this patch is really for Sam to judge - Cc:-ed him.
>
> If we move the include further down then the following:
>
> # Force gcc to behave correct even for buggy distributions
> # Arch Makefiles may override this setting
> KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option, -fno-stack-protector)
>
> will most likely fail.
ah, ok. (I long ago made the mental note of "dont change the toplevel Makefile
if you can avoid it" - this reinforces that.)
> If popwerpc needs to get rid of "-fno-omit-frame-pointer" then
> we need a way to express this at KConfig level and NOT by doing
> some tricks with CFLAGS.
Here is what we have in the toplevel Makefile at the moment:
ifdef CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -fno-omit-frame-pointer -fno-optimize-sibling-calls
else
KBUILD_CFLAGS += -fomit-frame-pointer
endif
My original suggestion (more than a week ago) was to make PPC always
select FRAME_POINTERS.
It was pointed out that -fno-omit-frame-pointers (i.e.: generate frame
pointers) not only makes the code less optimal on PPC, but it can also be
miscompiled.
But instrumentation really needs to know whether __builtin_return_address(1)
[etc] is reliable, whether stack tracing is fast - and other details - and PPC
is the odd one out.
So the question is: even with FRAME_POINTERS disabled on PPC, is
__builtin_return_address(1)/(2) reliable, and is save_stack_trace() fast? (i.e.
can it walk down the stack frame efficiently, or does it have to scan the full
kernel stack) I.e. does PPC have all the material advantages of frame pointers?
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
