Re: CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER [was [PATCH] x86: BUILD_IRQ say .text]

2008-07-28 Thread Hugh Dickins
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Hugh Dickins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I rather think CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER shouldn't exist at all (or be a > > private, config-user-invisible, specific-to-a-few-arches thing): what > > one wants to configure is how far to sacrifice cpu performan

Re: CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER [was [PATCH] x86: BUILD_IRQ say .text]

2008-07-28 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Hugh Dickins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [PATCH] sched: move sched_clock before first use > > Move sched_clock() up to stop warning: weak declaration of > `sched_clock' after first use results in unspecified behavior (if > -fno-unit-at-a-time). > > Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <[EMAIL PROTE

Re: CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER [was [PATCH] x86: BUILD_IRQ say .text]

2008-07-28 Thread Gabriel Paubert
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 10:36:42PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Sat, 2008-07-26 at 12:02 +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > > Hmm, perhaps it is doing sibling calls differently even without the > > explicit -fno-optimize-sibling-calls (but when I add that option, > > the vmlinux size do

Re: CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER [was [PATCH] x86: BUILD_IRQ say .text]

2008-07-26 Thread Benjamin Herrenschmidt
On Sat, 2008-07-26 at 12:02 +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > Hmm, perhaps it is doing sibling calls differently even without the > explicit -fno-optimize-sibling-calls (but when I add that option, > the vmlinux size does go up another 4400). > > Sorry, I'm most probably fussing over nothing, > and

Re: CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER [was [PATCH] x86: BUILD_IRQ say .text]

2008-07-26 Thread Hugh Dickins
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 19:45 +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > > I've Cc'ed Ben and linuxppc-dev because I wonder if they're aware > > that several options (I got it from LATENCYTOP, but I think LOCKDEP > > and FTRACE and some others) are doing a

Re: CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER [was [PATCH] x86: BUILD_IRQ say .text]

2008-07-25 Thread Benjamin Herrenschmidt
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 19:45 +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > I've Cc'ed Ben and linuxppc-dev because I wonder if they're aware > that several options (I got it from LATENCYTOP, but I think LOCKDEP > and FTRACE and some others) are doing a "select FRAME_POINTER", > which forces CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y

Re: CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER [was [PATCH] x86: BUILD_IRQ say .text]

2008-07-25 Thread Hugh Dickins
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Hugh Dickins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I've been using -fno-unit-at-a-time (to lessen inlining, for easier > > debugging) for a long time > > Should we perhaps enable this automatically on CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y > builds? Although a separate, d