From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:22:33 -0400 (EDT) > On Fri, 20 Jun 2008, David Miller wrote: > > > From: David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:44:24 -0700 (PDT) > > > >> I agree on both counts. Although I'm curious what the average stack > >> frame sizes look like on x86_64 and i386, and also how this area > >> appears on powerpc. > > > > I also one to mention in passing that another thing we can do to > > help deep call stack sizes is to make call chains more tail-call > > friendly when possible. > > ... and remove -fno-optimize-sibling-calls?: > > Makefile: > ifdef CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER > KBUILD_CFLAGS += -fno-omit-frame-pointer -fno-optimize-sibling-calls > else > KBUILD_CFLAGS += -fomit-frame-pointer > endif > > --- maybe it could be better to remove it, instead of some inlining that I > made. Or do you see a situation when for debugging purpose, user would > want -fno-optimize-sibling-calls? Yes for debugging and other things it has to stay. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
