> But why would anyone want frame pointers on x86-64? I'd put the question differently: Why should x86-64 not allow what other architectures do? But of course, I'm not insisting on this patch to get in, it just seemed an obvious inconsistency... Jan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [discuss] [PATCH] allow CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER for x86-64
- From: Hugh Dickins <[email protected]>
- Re: [discuss] [PATCH] allow CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER for x86-64
- References:
- [PATCH] allow CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER for x86-64
- From: "Jan Beulich" <[email protected]>
- Re: [discuss] [PATCH] allow CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER for x86-64
- From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- Re: [discuss] [PATCH] allow CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER for x86-64
- From: "Jan Beulich" <[email protected]>
- Re: [discuss] [PATCH] allow CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER for x86-64
- From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] allow CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER for x86-64
- Prev by Date: [PATCH 23/25] NTFS: Fix page_has_buffers()/page_buffers() handling in fs/ntfs/aops.c.
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] rmmod notifier chain (attempt 2)
- Previous by thread: Re: [discuss] [PATCH] allow CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER for x86-64
- Next by thread: Re: [discuss] [PATCH] allow CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER for x86-64
- Index(es):
