Em Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:48:22PM +0100, Andi Kleen escreveu: > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 01:04:58PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > Em Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:10:27AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu: > > > Em Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:54:50AM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu: > > > > > > BUILD_BUG_ON then? > > > > > > > > > > sounds gut > > > > > > > > hum, acme/perf/core changed and so has the compile error ;-) > > > > we dont overload the <linux/bug.h>, so the kernel one got > > > > included, which is wrong.. attached patch fixes that > > > > > > I had fixed this but not force pushed out, sorry. > > > > > > Now I mistakenly tried running: > > > > > > perf report --stdio --no-children --branch-history > > > > > > on a file that has no BRANCH_STACK, i.e. a perf.data file on a wrong > It works with -g.
What works with -g? perf report? > Without -g it will just give an error message. I think that is ok, isn't it? > > > directory since I'm comparing the output of --stdio, --tui and --gtk, > > > since it looks --gtk is wrong, still unsure about what the problem is in > > > that case, but stumbled on: > > > > > > > I need to investigate this further, so I created a perf/branch-history > > branch that has the patches I need to test more rebased on top of my > > perf/core branch I just pushed out to Ingo. > > > I tested --gtk and I don't see any differences to the console mode > with --branch-history. What problem do you see? The difference is with --tui, but I haven't checked if this is a problem introduced by your patchkit or if this is something that was there before it was applied. - Arnaldo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
