On Friday 09 September 2005 19:50, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 at 12:14:38 +0100 (BST), Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > It won't give more accurate backtraces, not even on i386 because
> > > show_stack doesn't
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 at 12:14:38 +0100 (BST), Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> > It won't give more accurate backtraces, not even on i386 because show_stack
> > doesn't have any code to follow frame pointers.
>
> Ah, right.
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:58:12PM +0200 Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Friday 09 September 2005 12:45, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > But why would anyone want frame pointers on x86-64?
> > >
> > > I'd put the question differently: Why should x86-64 not allow what
Philippe Elie a écrit :
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 at 11:23 +, Andi Kleen wrote:
Indeed. Someone must have fixed it. But why would anyone want frame pointers
on x86-64?
Oprofile can use it, I though it was already used but apparently only
to backtrace userspace actually.
Hi Pilippe
Last
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Friday 09 September 2005 13:31, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > But kdb should be using a dwarf2 unwinder instead. kgdb certainly
> > > supports that, as does NLKD.
> >
> > In an ideal and bloat-neutral world. I've
On Friday 09 September 2005 13:31, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:14:38PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > Ah, right. I'm using kdb with it. (And my recollection of when
> > > show_stack did have a framepointer version, is that it was
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:14:38PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > Ah, right. I'm using kdb with it. (And my recollection of when
> > show_stack did have a framepointer version, is that it was hopelessly
> > broken on interrupt frames, and we're much
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:14:38PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> Ah, right. I'm using kdb with it. (And my recollection of when
> show_stack did have a framepointer version, is that it was hopelessly
> broken on interrupt frames, and we're much better off without it.)
Not sure if the x86-64
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 01:07:02PM +0200, Philippe Elie wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 at 11:23 +, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
>
> > Indeed. Someone must have fixed it. But why would anyone want frame
> > pointers
> > on x86-64?
>
> Oprofile can use it, I though it was already used but apparently
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> It won't give more accurate backtraces, not even on i386 because show_stack
> doesn't have any code to follow frame pointers.
Ah, right. I'm using kdb with it. (And my recollection of when
show_stack did have a framepointer version, is that it was
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 at 11:23 +, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Indeed. Someone must have fixed it. But why would anyone want frame pointers
> on x86-64?
Oprofile can use it, I though it was already used but apparently only
to backtrace userspace actually.
--
Philippe Elie
-
To unsubscribe from
On Friday 09 September 2005 12:45, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > But why would anyone want frame pointers on x86-64?
> >
> > I'd put the question differently: Why should x86-64 not allow what
> > other architectures do?
> >
> > But of course, I'm not insisting
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > But why would anyone want frame pointers on x86-64?
>
> I'd put the question differently: Why should x86-64 not allow what
> other architectures do?
>
> But of course, I'm not insisting on this patch to get in, it just
> seemed an obvious
> But why would anyone want frame pointers on x86-64?
I'd put the question differently: Why should x86-64 not allow what
other architectures do?
But of course, I'm not insisting on this patch to get in, it just
seemed an obvious inconsistency...
Jan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
On Friday 09 September 2005 11:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 09.09.05 10:54:11 >>>
> >
> >On Thursday 08 September 2005 18:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> (Note: Patch also attached because the inline version is certain to
>
> get
>
> >> line wrapped.)
> >>
> >> Allow
>>> Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 09.09.05 10:54:11 >>>
>On Thursday 08 September 2005 18:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> (Note: Patch also attached because the inline version is certain to
get
>> line wrapped.)
>>
>> Allow building the x86-64 kernels with frame pointers if so needed.
>
>This doesn't
On Thursday 08 September 2005 18:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
> (Note: Patch also attached because the inline version is certain to get
> line wrapped.)
>
> Allow building the x86-64 kernels with frame pointers if so needed.
This doesn't work because you would need to pass -fno-omit-frame-pointer
On Thursday 08 September 2005 18:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
(Note: Patch also attached because the inline version is certain to get
line wrapped.)
Allow building the x86-64 kernels with frame pointers if so needed.
This doesn't work because you would need to pass -fno-omit-frame-pointer
Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09.09.05 10:54:11
On Thursday 08 September 2005 18:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
(Note: Patch also attached because the inline version is certain to
get
line wrapped.)
Allow building the x86-64 kernels with frame pointers if so needed.
This doesn't work because you
On Friday 09 September 2005 11:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09.09.05 10:54:11
On Thursday 08 September 2005 18:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
(Note: Patch also attached because the inline version is certain to
get
line wrapped.)
Allow building the x86-64 kernels
But why would anyone want frame pointers on x86-64?
I'd put the question differently: Why should x86-64 not allow what
other architectures do?
But of course, I'm not insisting on this patch to get in, it just
seemed an obvious inconsistency...
Jan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Jan Beulich wrote:
But why would anyone want frame pointers on x86-64?
I'd put the question differently: Why should x86-64 not allow what
other architectures do?
But of course, I'm not insisting on this patch to get in, it just
seemed an obvious inconsistency...
I'm
On Friday 09 September 2005 12:45, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Jan Beulich wrote:
But why would anyone want frame pointers on x86-64?
I'd put the question differently: Why should x86-64 not allow what
other architectures do?
But of course, I'm not insisting on this patch
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 at 11:23 +, Andi Kleen wrote:
Indeed. Someone must have fixed it. But why would anyone want frame pointers
on x86-64?
Oprofile can use it, I though it was already used but apparently only
to backtrace userspace actually.
--
Philippe Elie
-
To unsubscribe from this
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
It won't give more accurate backtraces, not even on i386 because show_stack
doesn't have any code to follow frame pointers.
Ah, right. I'm using kdb with it. (And my recollection of when
show_stack did have a framepointer version, is that it was
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 01:07:02PM +0200, Philippe Elie wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 at 11:23 +, Andi Kleen wrote:
Indeed. Someone must have fixed it. But why would anyone want frame
pointers
on x86-64?
Oprofile can use it, I though it was already used but apparently only
to
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:14:38PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
Ah, right. I'm using kdb with it. (And my recollection of when
show_stack did have a framepointer version, is that it was hopelessly
broken on interrupt frames, and we're much better off without it.)
Not sure if the x86-64 kdb
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:14:38PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
Ah, right. I'm using kdb with it. (And my recollection of when
show_stack did have a framepointer version, is that it was hopelessly
broken on interrupt frames, and we're much better off
On Friday 09 September 2005 13:31, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:14:38PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
Ah, right. I'm using kdb with it. (And my recollection of when
show_stack did have a framepointer version, is that it was hopelessly
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Friday 09 September 2005 13:31, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
But kdb should be using a dwarf2 unwinder instead. kgdb certainly
supports that, as does NLKD.
In an ideal and bloat-neutral world. I've always imagined
Philippe Elie a écrit :
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 at 11:23 +, Andi Kleen wrote:
Indeed. Someone must have fixed it. But why would anyone want frame pointers
on x86-64?
Oprofile can use it, I though it was already used but apparently only
to backtrace userspace actually.
Hi Pilippe
Last
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:58:12PM +0200 Andi Kleen wrote:
On Friday 09 September 2005 12:45, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Jan Beulich wrote:
But why would anyone want frame pointers on x86-64?
I'd put the question differently: Why should x86-64 not allow what
other
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 at 12:14:38 +0100 (BST), Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
It won't give more accurate backtraces, not even on i386 because show_stack
doesn't have any code to follow frame pointers.
Ah, right.
What's this for,
On Friday 09 September 2005 19:50, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 at 12:14:38 +0100 (BST), Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
It won't give more accurate backtraces, not even on i386 because
show_stack doesn't have any code
34 matches
Mail list logo
