From:	Vik Heyndrickx <Vik DOT Heyndrickx AT rug DOT ac DOT be>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Asm Question
Date:	Thu, 18 Sep 1997 13:52:07 +0200
Organization:	University of Ghent, Belgium
Lines:	17
Message-ID:	<342115E7.43D8@rug.ac.be>
References:	<Pine DOT LNX DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 970916120927 DOT 905A-100000 AT aditya DOT unigoa DOT ernet DOT in> <CX3zROAIRCI0Ewoi AT talula DOT demon DOT co DOT uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	eduserv1.rug.ac.be
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Shawn Hargreaves wrote:

... 
> the parameters and local variables are accessed relative to this. The
> main advantage to this is that the return address will always be at a
> fixed offset from %ebp, and the version of %ebp from the previous
> function will be pushed directly after this, so it is easy for debuggers
> and programs like symify to walk backwards up the callstack.

Does this then mean that program's compiled with the
-fomit-frame-pointer option, that access local variables directly
relative to %esp can yield problems with symify?

-- 
+----------------+
| Vik Heyndrickx |
+----------------+

- Raw text -