> 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.
Hopefully soon.
I think i386 only gained it very recently, so it can't be _that_ big
a problem.
The real issue is too deeply nested code like the callback hell
we have in some subsystems. Better would be to eliminate that. 2.4
was much nicer in this regard and there has been quite a lot of
unnecessary complications in this area when the kernel went to 2.6.
> Also, the printout of the backtrace is butt-ugly and
> as un-ergonomic to the human eye as it gets - 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.]
The original goal was to make it fit as much as possible on
the screen when you don't have a serial/net/fireconsole.
But arguably it's less and less useful because the kernel
has gotten so huge that most backtraces are very long and scroll
away anyways.
-Andi
-
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]
