On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 19:11 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > OK, so what's the status with this patch series? > > I don't want to pull it in unless I have an ack from Sam, and now > there's issues with having -fno-omit-frame-pointer. Should we add a > patch instead that simply removes that? > > If we eliminate the -fno-omit-frame-pointer, would that solve the PPC > problem? And would it cause any other issues with other archs?
Well, the patch looks fine to me to be honest I'm not sure what the complaint is above... IE. On arch that define the new HAVE_NORMAL_FRAME_POINTER (let's just call it HAVE_IMPLIED_FRAME_POINTER then :-) we just don't do -fno-omit-frame-pointer and avoid triggering the bug... Segher, what are we missing here ? Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
