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 hav
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
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 alwa
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 ho
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 be
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 kd
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 o
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 hopel
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 thi
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 o
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..
> 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 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 buil
>>> 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 wo
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
somewh
17 matches
Mail list logo
