[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER [was [PATCH] x86: BUILD_IRQ say .text]
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Hugh Dickins <> wrote:
> > I rather think CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER shouldn't exist at all (or be a
> > private, config-user-invisible, specific-to-a-few-arches thing): what
> > one wants to configure is how far to sacrifice cpu performance and
> > kernel smallness to getting a good stacktrace. Frame pointer is just
> > an implementation detail on that, appropriate to some arches. Perhaps
> > three settings: no stacktrace, fair stacktrace, best stacktrace.
> actually, we consciously use and rely on frame pointers on x86. The
> runtime cost on 64-bit is miniscule and the improved backtrace output in
> recent kernels makes backtraces _much_ easier to interpret:

Just to clarify, no way was I criticizing the use of frame pointers
on x86. What I don't care for is that CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER is used
by common code (e.g. top level Makefile, and various debug Kconfigs),
when I see it as an arch-specific technique for getting best stacktrace.


 \ /
  Last update: 2008-07-28 17:01    [W:0.063 / U:2.972 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site