[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161221102035.GA31703@sesse.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 11:20:35 +0100
From: "Steinar H. Gunderson" <sgunderson@...foot.com>
To: Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@...b.com>
Cc: "Jin, Yao" <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: Inlined functions in perf report
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:09:42AM +0100, Milian Wolff wrote:
> Just to check - did you really compile your code with frame pointers? By
> default, that is not the case, and the above will try to do frame pointer
> unwinding which will then fail. Put differently - do you any stack frames at
> all? Can you try `perf record --call-graph dwarf` instead? Of course, make
> sure you compile your code with `-g -O2` or similar.
I don't specifically use -fno-omit-frame-pointer, no. But the normal stack
unwinding works just fine with mainline perf nevertheless; is this expected?
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: https://www.sesse.net/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists