Re: [9fans] partial-Plan9ification question

[David Gordon Hogan <dhog@plan9.bell-labs.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 403 bytes --]

> I've never had -fomit-frame-pointer break anything. I think maybe it's an
> extranaeity for Pascal. Or for if you suddenly decide your GNU C is
> Pascal on the fly. i.e. I don't get why it's not the default.

I'ver never used it, so I've never had it break anything either.

My point was that I don't know whether ebp is callee-saved if
you use this option, and frankly I don't give a damn.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2304 bytes --]

From: Rick Hohensee <humbubba@smarty.smart.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] partial-Plan9ification question
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:26:35 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <200107131826.OAA09484@smarty.smart.net>

>
> > gcc varies between architectures, and even from platform to platform,
> > but i think even on the x86 with hardly any registers, some registers are callee-saved.
>
> ebx, esi and edi are callee save under GCC.  ebp is the frame pointer, so
> that one gets preserved too (I've no idea what happens if you compile with
> -fomit-frame-pointer).

I've never had -fomit-frame-pointer break anything. I think maybe it's an
extranaeity for Pascal. Or for if you suddenly decide your GNU C is
Pascal on the fly. i.e. I don't get why it's not the default.

Thanks to replyers fore and aft of this post. Looks like my headers
question is all on me.

Rick Hohensee

>
> This means that in the Plan 9 port of GCC, the system call wrappers
> have to push these four registers, then push copies of all the arguments...
>