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
-
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]
| |
 |