-
Why can't they spin a debug build where they can enable all of these debug features by default if they want?! If there is one thing the release build doesn't need it is performance regressions. -
A lot of the typical questions include these is addressed in the change proposal. They want to use this in production and not just for debugging, the FESCO ticket linked mentions that Google also does this. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Chang...in_production?Originally posted by Anux View PostLeave a comment:
-
Somthing I don't understand here. If I use -g for debugging builds, it should allready include no-omit-frame-pointer. If using -o2 than I certainly don't want debugging stuff in my release.Leave a comment:
-
Shouldn't it be possible to identify the stack layout from the debug Info and the instruction pointer? Which should be enough to infer the frame address.
The only issue I can see with this approach is alloca or other variable sized allocations on the stack. But those seem like a bad idea in general to me: either your variable sizes data is small enough to always fit on the stack, in which case why not do a fixed size buffer? Or you risk blowing the stack size and should have allocated on the heap to begin with.Leave a comment:
-
Fedora's FESCo Rejects The Idea Of "-fno-omit-frame-pointer" As Default Compiler Flag
Phoronix: Fedora's FESCo Rejects The Idea Of "-fno-omit-frame-pointer" As Default Compiler Flag
The past few months there has been a change proposal discussed around adding "-fno-omit-frame-pointer" to the default compilation flags for packages being built for Fedora Linux. Adding this option would improve the profiling/debug-ability of the packages but with possible performance implications. The Fedora Engineering and Steering Committee (FESCo) has now rejected this contentious change proposal...
Leave a comment: