Re: [discuss] [PATCH] allow CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER for x86-64

[Andrew Morton]

Alexander Nyberg <alexn@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/