On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 01:14:58PM +, David Laight wrote:
> From: kpark3...@gmail.com
> > Sent: 09 April 2018 12:59
> >
> > The old arch_within_stack_frames which used the frame pointer is
> > now reimplemented to use frame pointer unwinder apis. So the main
> > functionality is same as
On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 01:14:58PM +, David Laight wrote:
> From: kpark3...@gmail.com
> > Sent: 09 April 2018 12:59
> >
> > The old arch_within_stack_frames which used the frame pointer is
> > now reimplemented to use frame pointer unwinder apis. So the main
> > functionality is same as
From: kpark3...@gmail.com
> Sent: 09 April 2018 12:59
>
> The old arch_within_stack_frames which used the frame pointer is
> now reimplemented to use frame pointer unwinder apis. So the main
> functionality is same as before.
How much slower does this make the code?
Following stack frames using
From: kpark3...@gmail.com
> Sent: 09 April 2018 12:59
>
> The old arch_within_stack_frames which used the frame pointer is
> now reimplemented to use frame pointer unwinder apis. So the main
> functionality is same as before.
How much slower does this make the code?
Following stack frames using
From: Sahara
The old arch_within_stack_frames which used the frame pointer is
now reimplemented to use frame pointer unwinder apis. So the main
functionality is same as before.
Signed-off-by: Sahara
---
arch/x86/include/asm/unwind.h | 5
From: Sahara
The old arch_within_stack_frames which used the frame pointer is
now reimplemented to use frame pointer unwinder apis. So the main
functionality is same as before.
Signed-off-by: Sahara
---
arch/x86/include/asm/unwind.h | 5
arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c | 64
6 matches
Mail list logo