I didn't know about perfparse. I assume that is this code base:
http://code.qt.io/cgit/qt-creator/perfparser.git/
Very nice.
Yes. I'm also trying to port this to windows. So, I have lots of changes to
make the code more portable: https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/184401/ and
the 50 chang
On Mon, 2017-02-13 at 11:01 +0100, Ulf Hermann wrote:
> Thanks for pointing out the issues. I will track down the white space problem.
>
> > I could reconstruct it from that pastebin. But it was a bit of a
> > struggle, some parts didn't apply as is because tabs seemed to be turned
> > into spaces
Thanks for pointing out the issues. I will track down the white space problem.
I could reconstruct it from that pastebin. But it was a bit of a
struggle, some parts didn't apply as is because tabs seemed to be turned
into spaces. I tried to repost it to the list. But the first time it was
bounc
On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 17:50 +0100, Ulf Hermann wrote:
> > Try sending suspicious content via something like fpaste.org.
>
> I don't think it's very suspicious, but I don't intend to start a pointless
> argument as first thing I do here ;)
>
> fpaste.org won't accept it either, but paste.kde.or
On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 15:19 +0100, Ulf Hermann wrote:
> This is useful to test unwinding without debug information. The
> binaries being examined might still have frame pointers that allow
> us to bridge the unknown symbols.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hermann
Applied even though the new option is no
Try sending suspicious content via something like fpaste.org.
I don't think it's very suspicious, but I don't intend to start a pointless
argument as first thing I do here ;)
fpaste.org won't accept it either, but paste.kde.org does. So, here we go:
https://paste.kde.org/pgs6oqk2z
br,
Ulf
Unfortunately your mail server thinks it's spam, presumably because of
the inline test binaries. What can I do about that?
Do you have the bounce message, then we can investigate.
Otherwise could you post the patch without the test binaries?
Then we get them some other way.
The bounce message
On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 15:25 +0100, Ulf Hermann wrote:
> I have another patch here, that introduces the actual feature; a
> fallback mode for unwinding by frame pointer if unwinding by cfi
> fails.
That sounds like a useful feature!
> Unfortunately your mail server thinks it's spam, presumably bec
Hi,
I have another patch here, that introduces the actual feature; a fallback mode
for unwinding by frame pointer if unwinding by cfi fails. Unfortunately your
mail server thinks it's spam, presumably because of the inline test binaries.
What can I do about that?
br,
Ulf Hermann
This is useful to test unwinding without debug information. The
binaries being examined might still have frame pointers that allow
us to bridge the unknown symbols.
Signed-off-by: Ulf Hermann
---
tests/ChangeLog | 6 ++
tests/backtrace-subr.sh | 14 ++
tests/backtrace.c
10 matches
Mail list logo
