Messages in this thread |  | | | From | Andi Kleen <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86 NUMA panic compile error | | Date | Mon, 15 May 2006 21:47:01 +0200 |
| |
[... feels the love ...]
On Monday 15 May 2006 21:39, Andrew Morton wrote: > Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > > > Nevertheless for hard-to-debug bugs i prefer if they can be reproduced > > and debugged on 32-bit too, because x86_64 debugging is still quite a > > PITA and wastes alot of time: for example it has no support for exact > > kernel stacktraces. Also, the printout of the backtrace is butt-ugly and > > as un-ergonomic to the human eye as it gets > > Yes, I find x86_64 traces significantly harder to follow. And I miss the > display of the length of the functions (do_md_run+1208 instead of > do_md_run+1208/2043). The latter form makes it easier to work out > whereabouts in the function things happened. > > That, plus the mix of hex and decimal numbers.. > > > who came up with that > > "two-maybe-one function entries per-line" nonsense? [Whoever did it he > > never had to look at (and make sense of) hundreds of stacktraces in a > > row.] > > Plus they're wide enough to get usefully wordwrapped when someone mails > them to you.
Hmm, I didn't realize they were _that_ unpopular. If you got the i386 like space wasting backtraces would you guys all switch your development machines to x86-64 ? @)
-Andi - 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/
|  |