[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [avr-gcc-list] Frame pointer location
From: |
Johannes Bauer |
Subject: |
Re: [avr-gcc-list] Frame pointer location |
Date: |
Wed, 01 Sep 2010 10:47:24 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100423 Thunderbird/3.0.4 |
Am 31.08.2010 23:04, schrieb Stu Bell:
>> I doubt there's a
>> very broad audience for improved stackframes -- as I said,
>> people do care for the amount of code generated, next they do
>> care for the code size, then they compare the generated code
>> size with compiler XYZ, and only then they start comparing
>> other features. :-/
>
> For some users, I'm sure this is true. For others (such as me), an
> ability to show a stack trace would be a godsend. Not everyone is
> trying to fit code into an ATtiny or ATmega8! I specifically chose the
> ATmega2560 and added external SRAM so I would not have to worry about
> memory resources (as much). If I could trade SRAM efficiency for a
> stack trace, especially as a compile-time option, I would take it!
This is exactly what I am looking for, too, as I am in exactly the same
situation, just using an Xmega128a1 here. Memory and flash space is a
secondary interest for me while finding bugs during development has a
very high priority. Once it all works, I can just compile without
-fno-omit-frame-pointer and it would even have the low flash and lower
RAM requirements, but development would be greatly improved.
> Eh, such is life. Since I don't have them, I live without them. But
> just because I don't have stack traces (...and a Lotus Elise ;-) ),
> don't believe for a minute that I don't wish for them!
Maybe we'll get it done. If the compiler support were there, it would
all play out nicely :-) I'm still quite optimistic, it really cannot be
that hard to change IMHO.
Kind regards,
Johannes