From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:25894 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752544Ab2D0VMF (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:12:05 -0400 Message-ID: <4F9B0B9B.9020909@linux.intel.com> Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:11:55 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: RFC: How to handle function tracing, frame pointers and -mfentry? References: <1335552399.28106.228.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <20120427202701.GA5949@merkur.ravnborg.org> <4F9B020B.9050205@linux.intel.com> <1335560259.28106.234.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <1335560259.28106.234.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Sam Ravnborg , LKML , linux-kbuild , Michal Marek , Andrew Morton , Andi Kleen , Ingo Molnar , Frederic Weisbecker On 04/27/2012 01:57 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> >> Except it is the wrong thing. This is not the only user of frame >> pointer. What I think you mean is remove the dependency in Kconfig, but >> force the frame pointer enabled if -mfentry is not supported. > > You mean option 3? > > 3) Add frame pointers silently if gcc fails to build with gcc -pg. > Yes, your option 3. -hypa