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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

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 |
+----------------+