Re: [PATCH 3/4] Optionally allow unknown symbols in the backtrace tests

[Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org>]

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. I tried to repost it to the list. But the first time it was
> > bounced as "spam" and the second time after removing the git-bin-diffs
> > sourceware seemed to accept it, but then it never showed up on the list.
> > (See below for the logs on my end.)
> 
> I have the same frame pointer unwinding fallbacks for arm and arm64 in
> the elfutils bundled with perfparser. I just need to write test cases
> for them, then I will post them, too. So, it's probably a good idea to
> either have the mailing list accept patches with inline binaries or
> allow some other channel of patch submission.

I didn't know about perfparse. I assume that is this code base:
http://code.qt.io/cgit/qt-creator/perfparser.git/
Very nice.

Please feel free to sent the commit (with git send-email) to me and I
can add them to a review branch in elfutils.git so others can review
them easily. Or if you already have them in your own git tree feel free
to sent the commits to review/pull to the list. And we can pull them
from there. I assume this must be the patch that adds the arm64 support:
http://code.qt.io/cgit/qt-creator/perfparser.git/commit/3rdparty/elfutils?id=17ad3b57d613fede17a01b6cdd2d894850364f81

I'll ask overseers if something can be done about the sourceware list
being a little bit too strict on blocking these emails as spam.

Thanks,

Mark