[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1916323.ygRLzu1ryd@agathebauer>
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2017 13:13:11 +0200
From: Milian Wolff <milian.wolff@...b.com>
To: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@...hat.com>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
"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 Samstag, 17. Juni 2017 10:04:02 CEST Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> 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.
Personally, I agree with Jan that we should mimick existing tool's behavior. I
just fear that it's not trivial to do it with the current code base...
--
Milian Wolff | milian.wolff@...b.com | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH&Co KG, a KDAB Group company
Tel: +49-30-521325470
KDAB - The Qt Experts
Powered by blists - more mailing lists