MaskRay added a comment. In D150490#4343442 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D150490#4343442>, @craig.topper wrote:
> In D150490#4343145 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D150490#4343145>, @enh wrote: > >> In D150490#4343128 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D150490#4343128>, @hiraditya >> wrote: >> >>>> Is there more context on why Android enables the frame pointer? >>> >>> From what i gathered, this is more of an effort to have parity such that >>> existing build flag overrides continue to be consistent. >> >> well, when i said that on the internal chat, i thought you were asking "why >> do we say what clang already says?" :-) >> >> if the question was actually "is there more context on why Android enables >> the frame pointer?" i'd have said something like "because Android developers >> [OS and app developers alike] do so much debugging from the field, where all >> we get is a crash report for something we probably can't repro locally, that >> having good _and_ cheap unwinds is super important to us". > > Thanks. I suspected that was the answer, but I wanted to check that it made > sense to copy AArch64. Enabling the frame pointer is fine. We probably should revert ancient conventions by using `-fasynchronous-unwind-tables`... CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D150490/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D150490 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
