Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> 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.
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
