Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 22:33:51 -0800 From: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@me.com> To: Scott Long <scottl@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r274489 - in head/sys/amd64: amd64 include Message-ID: <35E5EAD8-99C1-43C0-8D01-B3B5B86ECA25@me.com> In-Reply-To: <201411132211.sADMBjP3009246@svn.freebsd.org> References: <201411132211.sADMBjP3009246@svn.freebsd.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Nov 13, 2014, at 14:11, Scott Long <scottl@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > Author: scottl > Date: Thu Nov 13 22:11:44 2014 > New Revision: 274489 > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/274489 > > Log: > Extend earlier addition of stack frames to most of support.S. This makes > stack traces in KDB, HWPMC, and DTrace much more reliable and useful. No performance differences? The kernel enables/disables the compiler option to omit the frame pointer based on the kernel config file. If DDB, DTrace, or HWPMC is enabled, the frame pointer is always saved in C functions. Some of these functions are in the hot path, so if you didn't see any performance problem, I wonder if we should disable -fomit-frame-pointer always. -- Rui Paulohelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?35E5EAD8-99C1-43C0-8D01-B3B5B86ECA25>