Bug#724976: Use CFLAGS=-grecord-gcc-switches to help debugging
Source: linux
Version: 3.10.11-1
Severity: wishlist
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hi!
Tools, like systemtap, need to circumvent some bugs in GCC, notably in
the way it reports debugging data for highly-optimized programs. For
example, the use of -mfentry flag can cause troubles. Systemtap
includes workarounds but they are only reliable when the kernel is
using some options. Therefore, systemtap needs to know with which
option GCC was invoked.
This can be done by using CFLAGS=-grecord-gcc-switches.
Currently, there is no known bug in GCC that would need to be
workaround. However, when a bug is spotted, it is usually too late to
ask for a workaround by including this flag. So, I think this flag
could be added for all next uploads to help future debugging.
Thanks.
- -- System Information:
Debian Release: jessie/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable'), (101, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386
Kernel: Linux 3.11-trunk-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.utf8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)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=8mZG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: