On Sat, 30 Sep 2006, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> We didn't so far find any bug in the unwinder code itself (ok if you don't
> count the performance issue Ingo found) just lots in the annotations and one
> bug in the dwarf2 standard.
I don't think it matters if it's a bug in the unwinding code or in the
data generated for it. It's still a bug in the unwinder.
Those bugs have been compiler bugs, manual annotation bugs, and it
doesn't _matter_ what kind of bugs. The end result is the same: the
unwinder is buggy.
> If you kick the people who add more than three levels of callback
> to core driver code to get their acts together too that's fine
> to me. Unfortunately I don't think that's realistic. So we clearly
> need better unwinding.
I dispute the "clearly". We didn't have _that_ many problems with just
manually filtering out obvious left-overs from some previous callchain.
I mean, really: Andi, point me to anything that was a real problem when we
had no unwinder at all?
Linus
-
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]
