On Thu, 2018-08-30 at 18:15 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Sorry for dropping this after you provided such an excellent analysis.
> So the problem really is that main gets split into main.cold which is
> jumped into, so a simple backtrace won't see the "hot" main anymore. If
> we would use the debug
Hi Martin,
Sorry for dropping this after you provided such an excellent analysis.
So the problem really is that main gets split into main.cold which is
jumped into, so a simple backtrace won't see the "hot" main anymore. If
we would use the debuginfo we might be able to get the "correct"
function
On 08/03/2018 11:46 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> On Fri, 2018-08-03 at 09:41 +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
>> As slightly discussed with Mark, there are tests that expect 'main'
>> will be present in backtrace. That's not always true on x86_64
>> because
>> -freorder-blocks-and-partition
Hi Martin,
On Fri, 2018-08-03 at 09:41 +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> As slightly discussed with Mark, there are tests that expect 'main'
> will be present in backtrace. That's not always true on x86_64
> because
> -freorder-blocks-and-partition option is on by default. Then one can
> see:
>
> [
Hello.
As slightly discussed with Mark, there are tests that expect 'main'
will be present in backtrace. That's not always true on x86_64 because
-freorder-blocks-and-partition option is on by default. Then one can see:
[ 88s] FAIL: run-backtrace-dwarf.sh
[ 88s]
[
