From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24AA6DDDEF
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Thu,  5 Feb 2009 12:15:52 +1100 (EST)
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] powerpc: Make it possible to safely select
	CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <1233794154.16878.20.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20090204150755.GA24163@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru>
	<20090204150838.GB30027@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru>
	<1233793889.4612.33.camel@pasglop>
	<1233794154.16878.20.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:15:31 +1100
Message-Id: <1233796531.4612.35.camel@pasglop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/options/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 19:35 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 11:31 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 18:08 +0300, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> > > Remove -fno-omit-frame-pointer flag from CFLAGS.
> > > Remove -fno-omit-frame-pointer workarounds.
> > 
> > But what about -pg -requires -fno-omit-frame-pointer ?
> 
> I don't think it requires -fno-omit-frame-pointer. It is just
> incompatible with -fomit-frame-pointer.

>>From a quick test, you seem to be right.

Now the question of course is whether -pg will internally trigger
the bug for which we need the workaround tho...

Ben.