Re: [PATCH] perf report: fix off-by-one for non-activation frames

2017-05-16 Thread Milian Wolff
On Dienstag, 16. Mai 2017 03:57:53 CEST Namhyung Kim wrote: > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 05:13:06PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote: > > On Monday, May 15, 2017 5:04:44 PM CEST Milian Wolff wrote: > > > As the documentation for dwfl_frame_pc says, frames that > > > are no activation frames need to have thei

Re: [PATCH] perf report: fix off-by-one for non-activation frames

2017-05-15 Thread Namhyung Kim
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 05:13:06PM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote: > On Monday, May 15, 2017 5:04:44 PM CEST Milian Wolff wrote: > > As the documentation for dwfl_frame_pc says, frames that > > are no activation frames need to have their program counter > > decremented by one to properly find the functi

Re: [PATCH] perf report: fix off-by-one for non-activation frames

2017-05-15 Thread Milian Wolff
On Monday, May 15, 2017 5:04:44 PM CEST Milian Wolff wrote: > As the documentation for dwfl_frame_pc says, frames that > are no activation frames need to have their program counter > decremented by one to properly find the function of the caller. Note that this leaves the perf build against libunw

[PATCH] perf report: fix off-by-one for non-activation frames

2017-05-15 Thread Milian Wolff
As the documentation for dwfl_frame_pc says, frames that are no activation frames need to have their program counter decremented by one to properly find the function of the caller. This fixes many cases where perf report currently attributes the cost to the next line. I.e. I have code like this: