On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 01:32:18AM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 09:11:46PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > 2015-07-15 18:27 GMT+02:00 Ken Moffat :
> > >
> > > The config differences follow. Perhaps it is actually one of the
> > > subsequent choices that is the problem.
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:05:05PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> Before going nuts bisecting, it could be worth running perf record -a -g -e
> cycles (or perhaps -e task-clock instead of -e cycles). It could also be
> worth manually sampling /proc/PID/stack a few times for a process that isn'
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 09:11:46PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 2015-07-15 18:27 GMT+02:00 Ken Moffat :
> >
> > The config differences follow. Perhaps it is actually one of the
> > subsequent choices that is the problem. And I guess it could still
> > be a gcc-5.1 issue.
> >
> > --- config
2015-07-15 18:27 GMT+02:00 Ken Moffat :
> New title, I originally posted this last night but I've now made
> a little progress in identifying what changed. Previous thread was
> labelled for AMD Phenom, but it is more general. CC'ing Jeff
> because he replied to the original, I guess he probably
On 07/15/2015 09:27 AM, Ken Moffat wrote:
New title, I originally posted this last night but I've now made
a little progress in identifying what changed. Previous thread was
labelled for AMD Phenom, but it is more general. CC'ing Jeff
because he replied to the original, I guess he probably won'
New title, I originally posted this last night but I've now made
a little progress in identifying what changed. Previous thread was
labelled for AMD Phenom, but it is more general. CC'ing Jeff
because he replied to the original, I guess he probably won't be
interested after this.
Yesterday was t
6 matches
Mail list logo
