Re: Efficient x86 and x86_64 NOP microbenchmarks

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...>, LKML <linux-kernel@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, David Miller <davem@...>, Roland McGrath <roland@...>, Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...>, Rusty Russell <rusty@...>, Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...>, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...>, Luis Claudio R. Goncalves <lclaudio@...>, Clark Williams <williams@...>
Date: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 4:06 pm

Steven Rostedt wrote:

Why?  You can always get the calling function, because its return 
address is on the stack (assuming mcount is called before the function 
puts its own frame on the stack).  But without a frame pointer, you 
can't necessarily get the caller's caller.

But I think Andi's point is that gcc forces frame pointers on when you 
enable mcount, so there's no choice in the matter.

    J
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: Efficient x86 and x86_64 NOP microbenchmarks, Steven Rostedt, (Wed Aug 13, 4:00 pm)
Re: Efficient x86 and x86_64 NOP microbenchmarks, Andi Kleen, (Wed Aug 13, 4:15 pm)
Re: Efficient x86 and x86_64 NOP microbenchmarks, Steven Rostedt, (Wed Aug 13, 4:21 pm)
Re: Efficient x86 and x86_64 NOP microbenchmarks, Linus Torvalds, (Wed Aug 13, 4:21 pm)
Re: Efficient x86 and x86_64 NOP microbenchmarks, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Wed Aug 13, 4:06 pm)
Re: Efficient x86 and x86_64 NOP microbenchmarks, Steven Rostedt, (Wed Aug 13, 4:34 pm)