* Daniel P. Berrangé: >> Given how pervasive this effect is and that no problems have been >> reported so far, I think we can drop -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer from >> the build flags. >> >> Thoughts? > > I recall the previous discussion around frame pointers was almost > exclusively around the main concept of frame pointers in general > (ie the main -mno-omit-frame-pointers arg). I don't recall any specific > points around the usage of the extra -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer > arg, though it was indeed mentioned in the Fedora change proposal[2]. I brought up -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer at one point to illustrate that -fno-omit-frame-pointer doesn't really do what was expected. But it seems that this didn't matter to most people. They only want the frame pointer register dedicated to the frame pointer if changed, and -fno-omit-frame-pointer achieves that, with or without -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer. > I guess I'd want to hear from the owners of the original change proposal > about their rationale / experiance with enabling both args, as opposed > to only -mno-omit-frame-pointers. I tried to contact at least one of them (now dropped from Cc:). The change proposal didn't link to Fedora wiki/accounts for the others. Thansk, Florian -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
