[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170617080402.GA1402@host1.jankratochvil.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2017 10:04:02 +0200
From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@...hat.com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc: Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@...b.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <Linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-perf-users <linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Yao Jin <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: perf report: fix off-by-one for non-activation frames
On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 09:56:57 +0200, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Not sure whether it needs be fixed or not. If we fix it, srcline and
> address would not match so it can give its own confusion to users.
> Ideally it should display an addressof the instruction before the
> address IMHO.
One can figure million ways how it can behave and each one has its pros and
cons. I was just describing the current behavior of GDB and LLDB which people
are used to already.
Jan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists