Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 11 Jun 2012 00:24:45 +0300
From:      Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Ryan Stone <rysto32@gmail.com>
Cc:        freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, Fabian Keil <freebsd-listen@fabiankeil.de>
Subject:   Re: decoding of multi-byte nops in dtrace
Message-ID:  <4FD5109D.5090107@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAFMmRNwURMy55acPGZfYWnNSCB8VUvqWExV27RhBqcZHVUY==A@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <4FD490D5.1070207@FreeBSD.org> <20120610152721.3b627896@fabiankeil.de> <4FD4CD8B.1080803@FreeBSD.org> <CAFMmRNwURMy55acPGZfYWnNSCB8VUvqWExV27RhBqcZHVUY==A@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 10/06/2012 23:40 Ryan Stone said the following:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> wrote:
>> Interesting observations, thank you.
>> Do you use -O2 or higher optimization for kernel/modules build?
>> I use only -O1.
>>
>> Here are some stats from my system:
>> $ dtrace -ln fbt::: | fgrep -c entry
>> 16876
>> $ dtrace -ln fbt::: | fgrep -c return
>> 16729
>>
>> So, 147 functions without return probe.
> 
> Try re-compiling with -foptimize-sibling-calls.  That enables the tail
> call optimization in gcc, and therefore you get many functions with no
> ret instruction (and thus no return probe in DTrace)

No, thank you :-)
I switched from -O2 to -O1 exactly for this reason (among a few others),
although -fno-optimize-sibling-calls would be a more targeted solution.

-- 
Andriy Gapon



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FD5109D.5090107>