Re: [PATCH] x86 NUMA panic compile error

[Andi Kleen]

[... feels the love ...]

On Monday 15 May 2006 21:39, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Nevertheless for hard-to-debug bugs i prefer if they can be reproduced 
> > and debugged on 32-bit too, because x86_64 debugging is still quite a 
> > PITA and wastes alot of time: for example it has no support for exact 
> > kernel stacktraces. Also, the printout of the backtrace is butt-ugly and 
> > as un-ergonomic to the human eye as it gets
> 
> Yes, I find x86_64 traces significantly harder to follow.  And I miss the
> display of the length of the functions (do_md_run+1208 instead of
> do_md_run+1208/2043).  The latter form makes it easier to work out
> whereabouts in the function things happened.
> 
> That, plus the mix of hex and decimal numbers..
> 
> > who came up with that 
> > "two-maybe-one function entries per-line" nonsense? [Whoever did it he 
> > never had to look at (and make sense of) hundreds of stacktraces in a 
> > row.]
> 
> Plus they're wide enough to get usefully wordwrapped when someone mails
> them to you.

Hmm, I didn't realize they were _that_ unpopular. If you got the i386 
like space wasting backtraces would you guys all switch your development machines
to x86-64 ? @)

-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/