Re: [PATCH] x86 NUMA panic compile error

Andi Kleen
2006-05-15T19:47:08Z

[... feels the love ...]

On Monday 15 May 2006 21:39, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> 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