Re: perf report: fix off-by-one for non-activation frames
From: Milian Wolff
Date: Tue Jul 04 2017 - 03:59:49 EST
On Monday, June 19, 2017 8:59:39 PM CEST Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 01:13:11PM +0200, Milian Wolff escreveu:
> > 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...
> But we agree it is a worthwhile change (have backtraces in perf match
> what gdb, etc show), right?
> If you can, please try to do this, your attempt will help us understand
> more the extent of the changes needed and perhaps someonw can come up
> with simplifications...
Sorry for the (long) delay, but I'm sadly busy on other things right now. I
have this on my radar and will try to find time to look into it. But it
probably won't happen before end of July. If this is urgent, maybe someone
else needs to look into it before me.
Milian Wolff | milian.wolff@xxxxxxxx | Senior Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH&Co KG, a KDAB Group company
KDAB - The Qt Experts
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature