Re: 6.16 gcc omit-frame pointer

2010-12-01 Thread David Jensen
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 22:59:35 -0600 Stuart Stegall wrote: > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:09 AM, David Jensen > wrote: > > Note: Section 5.10, “GCC-4.5.1 - Pass 2” does not use a case > > statement for the frame-pointer. Problematic for x86_64?  Perhaps > > both sections should be: > > > > gdb on A

Re: 6.16 gcc omit-frame pointer

2010-12-01 Thread Bruce Dubbs
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 Maybe even completely outdated. I'm not an expert on compilers, but the GCC instructions in Chapter 5

Re: 6.16 gcc omit-frame pointer

2010-12-01 Thread David Jensen
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 11:38:06 -0600 Bruce Dubbs 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 outdated.

Re: 6.16 gcc omit-frame pointer

2010-12-01 Thread Gilles Espinasse
- Original Message - From: "David Jensen" To: 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 wrote: > > > David Jensen wrote: > > > > > The point of the thread is that the 'chapter 5 gcc pass 2' a

Re: 6.16 gcc omit-frame pointer

2010-12-01 Thread Bruce Dubbs
David Jensen wrote: > On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 11:38:06 -0600 > Bruce Dubbs 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 eve

Re: 6.16 gcc omit-frame pointer

2010-12-01 Thread Stuart Stegall
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Gilles Espinasse wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "David Jensen" > To: > 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 wrote: >> >> > David Jensen wrot

Re: 6.16 gcc omit-frame pointer

2010-12-01 Thread Randy McMurchy
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 12/01/10 14:50 CST: > In Chapter 5, we are not doing a full bootstrap, so we add > -fomit-frame-pointer so it will produce the same codes as if it was a > full bootstrap. > > In Chapter 6, we do the same thing. I think, but I'm not sure, that > -fomit-frame-poi

Re: 6.16 gcc omit-frame pointer

2010-12-01 Thread David Jensen
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:54:32 -0600 Randy McMurchy wrote: > Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 12/01/10 14:50 CST: > > In Chapter 5, we are not doing a full bootstrap, so we add > > -fomit-frame-pointer so it will produce the same codes as if it was > > a full bootstrap. > > > > In Chapter 6, we d

Re: 6.16 gcc omit-frame pointer

2010-12-01 Thread Nathan Coulson
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:30 PM, David Jensen wrote: > On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:54:32 -0600 > Randy McMurchy wrote: > > > Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 12/01/10 14:50 CST: > > > In Chapter 5, we are not doing a full bootstrap, so we add > > > -fomit-frame-pointer so it will produce the same codes

Re: 6.16 gcc omit-frame pointer

2010-12-01 Thread Gilles Espinasse
- Original Message - From: "David Jensen" To: 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 wrote: > > > David Jensen wrote: > > > > > The point of the thread is that the 'chapter 5 gcc pass 2' a