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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |