On Mittwoch, 17. Mai 2017 08:13:16 CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 03:18:13PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> > On Dienstag, 16. Mai 2017 02:53:32 CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:01:54PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> > > > On Monday, May 15, 2017 3:21:58 AM
On Mittwoch, 17. Mai 2017 08:13:16 CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 03:18:13PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> > On Dienstag, 16. Mai 2017 02:53:32 CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:01:54PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> > > > On Monday, May 15, 2017 3:21:58 AM
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 03:18:13PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> On Dienstag, 16. Mai 2017 02:53:32 CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:01:54PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 15, 2017 3:21:58 AM CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > > Hi Milian,
> > > >
> > > > On
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 03:18:13PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> On Dienstag, 16. Mai 2017 02:53:32 CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:01:54PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 15, 2017 3:21:58 AM CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > > Hi Milian,
> > > >
> > > > On
On Dienstag, 16. Mai 2017 02:53:32 CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:01:54PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> > On Monday, May 15, 2017 3:21:58 AM CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > Hi Milian,
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 08:10:50PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> > > > On
On Dienstag, 16. Mai 2017 02:53:32 CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:01:54PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> > On Monday, May 15, 2017 3:21:58 AM CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > Hi Milian,
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 08:10:50PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> > > > On
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:01:54PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> On Monday, May 15, 2017 3:21:58 AM CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > Hi Milian,
> >
> > On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 08:10:50PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> > > On Freitag, 12. Mai 2017 15:01:29 CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 12,
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:01:54PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> On Monday, May 15, 2017 3:21:58 AM CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > Hi Milian,
> >
> > On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 08:10:50PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> > > On Freitag, 12. Mai 2017 15:01:29 CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 12,
On Monday, May 15, 2017 3:21:58 AM CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi Milian,
>
> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 08:10:50PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> > On Freitag, 12. Mai 2017 15:01:29 CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:37:01PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> > > > On Mittwoch, 10.
On Monday, May 15, 2017 3:21:58 AM CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi Milian,
>
> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 08:10:50PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> > On Freitag, 12. Mai 2017 15:01:29 CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:37:01PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> > > > On Mittwoch, 10.
Hi Milian,
On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 08:10:50PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> On Freitag, 12. Mai 2017 15:01:29 CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:37:01PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> > > On Mittwoch, 10. Mai 2017 07:53:52 CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > On
Hi Milian,
On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 08:10:50PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> On Freitag, 12. Mai 2017 15:01:29 CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:37:01PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> > > On Mittwoch, 10. Mai 2017 07:53:52 CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > On
Hi Andi,
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 07:55:13AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Milian Wolff writes:
> >
> > I think I'm missing something, but isn't this what this function provides?
> > The
> > function above is now being used by the match_chain_inliner function below.
> >
> >
Hi Andi,
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 07:55:13AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Milian Wolff writes:
> >
> > I think I'm missing something, but isn't this what this function provides?
> > The
> > function above is now being used by the match_chain_inliner function below.
> >
> > Ah, or do you mean for
On Freitag, 12. Mai 2017 15:01:29 CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:37:01PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> > On Mittwoch, 10. Mai 2017 07:53:52 CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > Hi,
> >
> > > On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 11:35:36PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > +static
On Freitag, 12. Mai 2017 15:01:29 CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:37:01PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> > On Mittwoch, 10. Mai 2017 07:53:52 CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > Hi,
> >
> > > On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 11:35:36PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > +static
Milian Wolff writes:
>
> I think I'm missing something, but isn't this what this function provides?
> The
> function above is now being used by the match_chain_inliner function below.
>
> Ah, or do you mean for code such as this:
>
> ~
> inline_func_1();
Milian Wolff writes:
>
> I think I'm missing something, but isn't this what this function provides?
> The
> function above is now being used by the match_chain_inliner function below.
>
> Ah, or do you mean for code such as this:
>
> ~
> inline_func_1(); inline_func_2();
This could be
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:37:01PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 10. Mai 2017 07:53:52 CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 11:35:36PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
>
>
>
> > > +static enum match_result match_chain_srcline(struct callchain_cursor_node
> > >
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:37:01PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> On Mittwoch, 10. Mai 2017 07:53:52 CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 11:35:36PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
>
>
>
> > > +static enum match_result match_chain_srcline(struct callchain_cursor_node
> > >
On Mittwoch, 10. Mai 2017 07:53:52 CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 11:35:36PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> > +static enum match_result match_chain_srcline(struct callchain_cursor_node
> > *node, + struct callchain_list
> >
On Mittwoch, 10. Mai 2017 07:53:52 CEST Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 11:35:36PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> > +static enum match_result match_chain_srcline(struct callchain_cursor_node
> > *node, + struct callchain_list
> >
Hi,
On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 11:35:36PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> When different functions get inlined into the same function, we
> want to show them individually in the reports. But when we group by
> function, we would aggregate all IPs and would only keep the first
> one in that function.
Hi,
On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 11:35:36PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote:
> When different functions get inlined into the same function, we
> want to show them individually in the reports. But when we group by
> function, we would aggregate all IPs and would only keep the first
> one in that function.
Em Mon, May 08, 2017 at 10:45:18AM +0200, Milian Wolff escreveu:
> On Mittwoch, 3. Mai 2017 23:35:36 CEST Milian Wolff wrote:
> > When different functions get inlined into the same function, we
> > want to show them individually in the reports. But when we group by
> > function, we would aggregate
Em Mon, May 08, 2017 at 10:45:18AM +0200, Milian Wolff escreveu:
> On Mittwoch, 3. Mai 2017 23:35:36 CEST Milian Wolff wrote:
> > When different functions get inlined into the same function, we
> > want to show them individually in the reports. But when we group by
> > function, we would aggregate
On Mittwoch, 3. Mai 2017 23:35:36 CEST Milian Wolff wrote:
> When different functions get inlined into the same function, we
> want to show them individually in the reports. But when we group by
> function, we would aggregate all IPs and would only keep the first
> one in that function. E.g. for
On Mittwoch, 3. Mai 2017 23:35:36 CEST Milian Wolff wrote:
> When different functions get inlined into the same function, we
> want to show them individually in the reports. But when we group by
> function, we would aggregate all IPs and would only keep the first
> one in that function. E.g. for
When different functions get inlined into the same function, we
want to show them individually in the reports. But when we group by
function, we would aggregate all IPs and would only keep the first
one in that function. E.g. for C++ code like the following:
~
#include
#include
#include
When different functions get inlined into the same function, we
want to show them individually in the reports. But when we group by
function, we would aggregate all IPs and would only keep the first
one in that function. E.g. for C++ code like the following:
~
#include
#include
#include
30 matches
Mail list logo