GNU bug report logs - #76180
[feature/igc] Remaining known tracing issues

Previous Next

Full log

Message #44 received at 76180 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Pip Cet <pipcet <at> protonmail.com>
Cc: eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu, 76180 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, mattiase <at> acm.org,
 gerd.moellmann <at> gmail.com, stefankangas <at> gmail.com, acorallo <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#76180: [feature/igc] Remaining known tracing issues
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 15:09:48 +0200

> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 12:57:49 +0000
> From: Pip Cet <pipcet <at> protonmail.com>
> Cc: acorallo <at> gnu.org, stefankangas <at> gmail.com, 76180 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, gerd.moellmann <at> gmail.com, mattiase <at> acm.org, eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu
> 
> "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> I'm not sure what you mean: the code is generated by libgccjit.
> >
> > Oh, I didn't realize that.  If we really have no control over this,
> > then maybe a bug report against libgccjit is in order?
> 
> I think I misexpressed myself.  The problem is that libgccjit acts like
> GCC, generating new native code which may or may not use %rbp depending
> on the compiler options specified by comp.c.  Old versions of libgccjit
> had no way of passing such compiler options, but current ones do.
> 
> The question is whether we're happy appending "-fno-omit-frame-pointer",
> or whether we want to be ambitious and refuse to accept
> "-fomit-frame-pointer".

I think the former.  And maybe not to append that at the very end, so
as to leave a "fire escape" for those who, for some reasons, want to
use -fomit-frame-pointer, and presumably know what they are doing.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.