Re: Call Trace

["Jesper Juhl" <jesper.juhl@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 09/08/07, Rene Herman <rene.herman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 08/09/2007 10:49 PM, Jesper Juhl wrote:
>
> > On 09/08/07, Rene Herman <rene.herman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On 08/09/2007 09:29 PM, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 09/08/07, Stavros Passas <stabat@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> For example, one line could be :
> >>>>  [<ffffffff802478c1>] acct_collect+0x42/0x18e
> >>>>
> >>> [<address_of_function>] name_of_function+offset_into_function/size_of_function
> >> "return address as found on stack", rather than "address_of_function".
> >>
> > Right, as found on stack, I guess I should have elaborated on that bit - thanks.
>
> Well... hope I'm not annoying you or anything, but the "return address" bit
> was actually more the point than the "as found on stack" bit. If the printed
> name is "name_of_function" then the printed address is not
> address_of_function (but address_of_function+offset_into_function).
>

call foo

address of caller gets pushed onto the stack, that's the addr printed,
the address that would later be returned to by

ret


agreed?


-- 
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@xxxxxxxxx>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with
"unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ