Steven Rostedt wrote:
IIRC, only CALLER_ADDR0 is actually used (I've found that the others are
mostly unreliable).
I seem to recall more use was made of __builtin_return_address(n)
for 0 < n in the past compared to the current code. Likely for
shallow frames the 0 < n calls were potentially
Steven Rostedt wrote:
IIRC, only CALLER_ADDR0 is actually used (I've found that the others are
mostly unreliable).
I seem to recall more use was made of __builtin_return_address(n)
for 0 n in the past compared to the current code. Likely for
shallow frames the 0 n calls were potentially
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, john cooper wrote:
>
> It isn't an issue of getting a hook into the FUNCTION_PROLOGUE
> (mcount() here) but rather of emulating the CALLER_ADDR[0123]
> defs which map onto the gcc internal __builtin_return_address().
> Doing so using the affectionately dubbed "Three Stooges
Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Tim Bird wrote:
john cooper wrote:
The more daunting problem stems from limitations in the MIPS
ABI which makes the latency trace support problematic.
Rather than rehash the issue:
http://lists.linuxcoding.com/kernel/2005-q4/msg10163.html
Until
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Tim Bird wrote:
> john cooper wrote:
> > The more daunting problem stems from limitations in the MIPS
> > ABI which makes the latency trace support problematic.
> > Rather than rehash the issue:
> >
> > http://lists.linuxcoding.com/kernel/2005-q4/msg10163.html
> >
> >
john cooper wrote:
> The more daunting problem stems from limitations in the MIPS
> ABI which makes the latency trace support problematic.
> Rather than rehash the issue:
>
> http://lists.linuxcoding.com/kernel/2005-q4/msg10163.html
>
> Until we have a usable instrumentation solution in
john cooper wrote:
The more daunting problem stems from limitations in the MIPS
ABI which makes the latency trace support problematic.
Rather than rehash the issue:
http://lists.linuxcoding.com/kernel/2005-q4/msg10163.html
Until we have a usable instrumentation solution in place,
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Tim Bird wrote:
john cooper wrote:
The more daunting problem stems from limitations in the MIPS
ABI which makes the latency trace support problematic.
Rather than rehash the issue:
http://lists.linuxcoding.com/kernel/2005-q4/msg10163.html
Until we have a
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, john cooper wrote:
It isn't an issue of getting a hook into the FUNCTION_PROLOGUE
(mcount() here) but rather of emulating the CALLER_ADDR[0123]
defs which map onto the gcc internal __builtin_return_address().
Doing so using the affectionately dubbed Three Stooges
Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Tim Bird wrote:
john cooper wrote:
The more daunting problem stems from limitations in the MIPS
ABI which makes the latency trace support problematic.
Rather than rehash the issue:
http://lists.linuxcoding.com/kernel/2005-q4/msg10163.html
Until
10 matches
Mail list logo
