On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Gilles Espinasse <g....@free.fr> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Jensen" <djensen...@windstream.net> > To: <lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org> > Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 9:01 PM > Subject: Re: 6.16 gcc omit-frame pointer > > >> On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 11:38:06 -0600 >> Bruce Dubbs <bruce.du...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > David Jensen wrote: >> > >> > > The point of the thread is that the 'chapter 5 gcc pass 2' and the >> > > 'chapter 6 gcc' instructions and explanations are inconsistent, >> > > confusing and wrong for all but i?86. Maybe even completely >> > > outdated. >> > > Right for the difference for non i?86 > The chap5 gcc pass2 text say "For x86 machines, " but the instruction miss > the > case `uname -m` in > i?86)esac > that is present in chap6 > > The difference from i?86 and x86_64 is normal, that 's explained in > http://www.mail-archive.com/lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org/msg02080.html > > I don't know if gcc-4.5 still behave that way. > > Gilles > > -- > http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev > FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ > Unsubscribe: See the above information page >
It's a fix that's only applicable to x86. amd64/arm is always -fno-frame-pointer (unless of course you are explicit with turning it on.) gcc-4.6 will change x86's behavior to -fno-frame-pointer by default. Honestly, I thought this issue was fixed in gcc-4.3. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
