[PATCH 2/5] gas: disable SFrame warnings if default-enabled

[Jan Beulich]

On 18.08.2025 16:24, Sam James wrote:
> Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> writes:
> 
>> When bootstrapping Binutils in packaging, I saw:
>> ```
>> {standard input}: Assembler messages:
>> {standard input}: Warning: no SFrame FDE emitted; non-SP/FP register 10 in .cfi_def_cfa
>> {standard input}: Warning: no SFrame FDE emitted; .cfi_escape with op (0xf)
>> [...]
>> FAIL: bootstrap with strip
>> ```
>>
>> Disable all the "no SFrame FDE emitted" warnings if SFrames are default-enabled:
>> they will still appear with explicit --gsframe=yes. For distributions to
>> deploy default-enabled SFrames, SFrames need to be opportunistic, which
>> means not creating a lot of noise in build logs or aborting the build
>> when SFrames cannot be generated (unless --gsframe is passed explicitly,
>> of course).
>>
>> Note that this commit does not preclude the possibility of us emitting
>> a warning in the default-enabled case in future if it's merited, just it
>> doesn't seem we ought to in these cases.
> 
> Prompted by doko asking about this: the big issue (or non-issue with the
> change) is SFrames currently can't handle some common patterns emitted
> by GCC, see
> https://sourceware.org/binutils/wiki/sframe/sframev3todo#Make_support_for_topmost_frames_more_flexible.

I understand this aspect, yet I wonder: What use is it to have default-
enabled SFrame when then you're not even told that some of your binaries
still ended up without? Someone wondering what's wrong wouldn't even be
able to go check the build logs.

Jan