Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 15 May 2006 12:39:29 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86 NUMA panic compile error |
| |
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> 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 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/
| |