rustbot
commented
4 months ago This issue is not meant to be used for technical discussion. There is a Zulip stream for that. Use this issue to leave procedural comments, such as volunteering to review, indicating that you second the proposal (or third, etc), or raising a concern that you would like to be addressed.
Concerns or objections to the proposal should be discussed on Zulip and formally registered here by adding a comment with the following syntax:
@rustbot concern reason-for-concern
<description of the concern> Concerns can be lifted with:
@rustbot resolve reason-for-concern See documentation at https://forge.rust-lang.org
cc @rust-lang/compiler @rust-lang/compiler-contributors
Mark-Simulacrum
apiraino
Proposal
I think we should allow people to set all the frame pointer options that our codegen backends typically support! There are lots of benefits from specifically the non-leaf form. It typically is found to minimize the perf hit to "no significant performance impact" while recovering ~all the improved traceability one wants.
We even recently had a contributor say that it should be settable!
So let's add
-Cforce-frame-pointers=non-leaf!...behind
-Zunstable-optionsfor now.Mentors or Reviewers
uh. it's really easy, so I already did it.
Process
The main points of the Major Change Process are as follows:
@rustbot second.-C flag, then full team check-off is required.@rfcbot fcp mergeon either the MCP or the PR.You can read more about Major Change Proposals on forge.
Comments
This issue is not meant to be used for technical discussion. There is a Zulip stream for that. Use this issue to leave procedural comments, such as volunteering to review, indicating that you second the proposal (or third, etc), or raising a concern that you would like to be addressed.