Hello, The file format should not be an issue for the representation of the states, I have tried a couple of files in 2.3 format and detected some differences but far less than with your file.
I.e. in one of the files I tried with 380 processes, the only UNNAMED process was the swapper while lttv was able to resolve the name. There were 2 out of 380 processes with a birth time of 0. We will look into these differences and align with lttv, There is no specific bug to track the differences as mentioned in your e-mail below, Please file a bug so we can track the progress on it. In order to have a common ground to discuss it, please submit the traces. If they are very large please e-mail me directly so I can fetch the logs. Best Regards /Alvaro On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Vestal Richard-B15972 <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi, > > > > I recognize that the lttng viewer for eclipse is at the .5 state, but here > are some questions that relate to its current functionality. Please let me > know if I can find this information out somewhere else (bug database?): > > > > We are loading the same trace file into the eclipse viewer as we are into > the LTTV viewer and are seeing differences between them. For instance: > > > > - The time values (both birth and nanos) are 0 for many entries > (>90%) in eclipse but they almost all have values in the lttv viewer (The > swapper process has 0 values in LTTV). > > > > - The number of events is different across the two. There are > many UNNAMED processes in the Eclipse viewer. > > > > We are running on 2.3 traces. Would this be an issue with the trace > format? > > > > Thanks, > > > > n Rick > > > > _______________________________________________ > linuxtools-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxtools-dev > >
_______________________________________________ linuxtools-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxtools-dev
