Eric W. Biederman wrote: > I'm conflicted about the dwarf unwinder. I was off doing other things > at the time so I missed the pain, but I do have a distinct recollection of > the back traces on x86_64 being distinctly worse the on i386. Lately > I haven't seen that so it may be I was misinterpreting what I was > seeing, and the compiler optimizations were what gave me such weird > back traces. > Well, if you compile x86_64 with frame pointers it helps a bit because the compiler doesn't tail merge function calls. But the stack backtrace ignores the frame pointers even if they're present, unlike i386 which will use them. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
