Re: [PATCH 36/50] tools/perf/build: Speed up auto-detection

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 01:56:29PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> SNIP
> 
> > -FEATURE_TESTS =				\
> > -	hello				\
> > -	stackprotector-all		\
> > -	stackprotector			\
> > -	volatile-register-var		\
> > +#
> > +# Note that this is not a complete list of all feature tests, just
> > +# those that are typically built on a fully configured system.
> > +#
> > +# [ Feature tests not mentioned here have to be built explicitly in
> > +#   the rule that uses them - an example for that is the 'bionic'
> > +#   feature check. ]
> > +#
> > +CORE_FEATURE_TESTS =			\
> > +	backtrace			\
> > +	dwarf				\
> >  	fortify-source			\
> > -	bionic				\
> > -	libelf				\
> >  	glibc				\
> > -	dwarf				\
> > -	libelf-mmap			\
> > -	libelf-getphdrnum		\
> > -	libunwind			\
> > -	libaudit			\
> > -	libslang			\
> >  	gtk2				\
> >  	gtk2-infobar			\
> > +	libaudit			\
> > +	libbfd				\
> > +	libelf				\
> > +	libelf-getphdrnum		\
> > +	libelf-mmap			\
> > +	libnuma				\
> >  	libperl				\
> >  	libpython			\
> >  	libpython-version		\
> > -	libbfd				\
> > +	libslang			\
> > +	libunwind			\
> >  	on-exit				\
> > -	backtrace			\
> > -	libnuma
> > +	stackprotector-all		\
> 
> missing stackprotector?

Thanks, fixed.

Btw., this was amazing of you to find during review, from such a 
supposedly identity transformation patch! :)

> I guess that various gcc version could support either
> of them or both.. so we need to check for both
> 
> looks like -fstack-protector-all overloads -fstack-protector
> but no harm to have them both added probably ;-)

Yeah, both checks were there originally and it was an oversight from me 
to have only stackprotector-all in the final result.

(Had I left it out intentionally it would have been either a separate 
patch, or at least would have earned a mention in the changelog.)

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/