[lttng-dev] babeltrace cannot open the trace but Trace Compass can open

Hi, I have a trace which cannot be opened by babeltrace as below, but I can open it with Trace Compass. skim@d54030999178:/mnt/ssd/work/skim/traces$ babeltrace2 ./kernel/ 07-22 07:49:20.099 5264 5264 E PLUGIN/CTF/META/IR-VISITOR get_unary_unsigned@visitor-generate-ir.c:800 [auto-disc-source-

[lttng-dev] difference of timestamp between babeltrace and python binding

Hi, I found that the timestamps from babeltrace and python binding are different in nanoseconds level. skim@d54030999178:~/ssd_work/traces$ python3 test.py ./trace/ | head -n 10 2019-12-12 13:45:40.098212096 (+0.00 s): syscall_exit_ppoll 2019-12-12 13:45:40.098213608 (+0.01 s): rcu_utili

Re: [lttng-dev] difference of timestamp between babeltrace and python binding

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 9:17 AM Kim, Seongab via lttng-dev wrote: > > Hi, Hello. See my comments below. > > I found that the timestamps from babeltrace and python binding are different > in nanoseconds level. > > skim@d54030999178:~/ssd_work/traces$ python3 test.py ./trace/ | head -n 10 > 2019

Re: [lttng-dev] babeltrace cannot open the trace but Trace Compass can open

Thank you for the bug report. Can I kindly ask you to create an official issue for this? Go to . I'd also like you to attach the offending CTF trace so that I can analyze it if it doesn't contain sensitive data and is somewhat small. If it's

Re: [lttng-dev] [EXTERNAL] Re: difference of timestamp between babeltrace and python binding

> -Original Message- > From: Philippe Proulx > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 4:57 PM > To: Kim, Seongab > Cc: lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [lttng-dev] difference of timestamp between > babeltrace and python binding > > `type(1e3)` is `float`. > > You get an inacc