Joseph Myers wrote: > On Fri, 3 Nov 2017, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: > > > Almost all targets add an explict -fomit-frame-pointer in the target > > specific > > options. Rather than doing this in a target-specific way, do this in the > > Which targets do not? You should explicitly list them and CC their > maintainers and seek confirmation that such a change is appropriate for > them.
The targets that don't explicitly enable -fomit-frame-pointer in the target options or force it internally are bfin, ft32, h8300, m68k - I've CCd the maintainers (it seems there is no-one for h8300). > The addition of -fomit-frame-pointer through this mechanism was a > replacement for the old target macro CAN_DEBUG_WITHOUT_FP. It may now be > the cases that with DWARF debug info, having or not having a frame pointer > is not particularly relevant to debugging. But since there are other > reasons people may want a frame pointer (e.g. light-weight backtraces that > don't depend on debug / unwind info), it's at least possible there are > architecture-specific choices regarding keeping frame pointers involved > here. I believe in those cases targets already force the frame pointer as required, for example msp430 sets the frame pointer if unwind tables are emitted irrespectively of the command-line or default setting. Various other targets don't even use frame_pointer_needed and just do their own thing. Wilco