Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 9 Sep 2005 11:45:27 +0100 (BST) | From | Hugh Dickins <> | Subject | Re: [discuss] [PATCH] allow CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER for x86-64 |
| |
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.
Is x86_64 somehow more likely to give you a less noisy backtrace than i386? Fewer of those stale return addresses from earlier trips down the stack?
Frame pointers are imperfect on all(?) the supported architectures, but I can't see any good reason to exclude them from x86_64. Just a couple of weeks ago LKML had a bug where enabling frame pointers on x86_64 helped Ingo to pinpoint the origin of the problem.
Hugh - 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/
| |