Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030398AbVIJFOA (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Sep 2005 01:14:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030493AbVIJFOA (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Sep 2005 01:14:00 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:40867 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030398AbVIJFOA (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Sep 2005 01:14:00 -0400 Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 22:13:20 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Alexander Nyberg Cc: ak@suse.de, hugh@veritas.com, JBeulich@novell.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, discuss@x86-64.org Subject: Re: [discuss] [PATCH] allow CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER for x86-64 Message-Id: <20050909221320.6b53a030.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20050909171929.GA4155@localhost.localdomain> References: <43207D28020000780002451E@emea1-mh.id2.novell.com> <4321749202000078000248C5@emea1-mh.id2.novell.com> <200509091258.13300.ak@suse.de> <20050909171929.GA4155@localhost.localdomain> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1318 Lines: 32 Alexander Nyberg wrote: > > 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 show_trace() uses print_context_stack(), but show_stack() just does a dump-everything. I wondered why the CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER oops traces were still so crappy. TIA ;) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/