![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Alexander Nyberg <alexn@telia.com> wrote: > > 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 architectures do? > > > > > > > > But of course, I'm not insisting on this patch to get in, it just > > > > seemed an obvious inconsistency... > > > > > > I'm with Jan on this. I use a similar patch for frame pointers on > > > x86_64 most of the time, in the hope of getting more accurate backtraces. > > > > It won't give more accurate backtraces, not even on i386 because show_stack > > doesn't have any code to follow frame pointers. > > > > Huh? print_context_stack follows frame pointers which is called from > show_stack show_trace() uses print_context_stack(), but show_stack() just does a dump-everything. I wondered why the CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER oops traces were still so crappy. TIA ;) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-09-10 06:54 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||