Messages in this thread Patches in this message | | | Date | Fri, 6 Nov 2015 17:51:20 +0000 | From | Catalin Marinas <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] arm64: remove redundant FRAME_POINTER kconfig option |
| |
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 09:39:07AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote: > On 11/6/2015 9:35 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > >On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 09:23:38AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote: > >>On 11/6/2015 8:25 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > >>>However, the patch would allow one to > >>>disable FRAME_POINTERS (not sure it has any effect on the aarch64 gcc > >>>though). > >> > >>No, it doesn't. Actually, FRAME_POINTER could be disabled regardless of the > >>patch. > > > >In which case I suggest that we always select it just as a clearer > >statement that the feature cannot be disabled (and you never know what > >the compiler people decide to do in the future). > > Do you mean select FRAME_POINTER in ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS? > > Yes, we could, but this may cause other architectures which select > ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS to have FRAME_POINTER selected too.
This would have been the ideal option, something like:
--- a/lib/Kconfig.debug +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug @@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ config ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS help config FRAME_POINTER - bool "Compile the kernel with frame pointers" + bool "Compile the kernel with frame pointers" if !ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS depends on DEBUG_KERNEL && \ (CRIS || M68K || FRV || UML || \ AVR32 || SUPERH || BLACKFIN || MN10300 || METAG) || \ But, as you said, we would need to check the other architectures selecting ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS.
In the meantime:
--- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ config ARM64 select CPU_PM if (SUSPEND || CPU_IDLE) select DCACHE_WORD_ACCESS select EDAC_SUPPORT + select FRAME_POINTER select GENERIC_ALLOCATOR select GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS select GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS_BROADCAST -- Catalin
| |