Re: [PATCH 34/34] perf tools unwinding: Use the per-feature checkflags

[Jiri Olsa]

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 09:02:23PM +0100, Jean Pihet wrote:
> On 28 November 2013 14:46, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Em Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 09:56:19AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> >> Em Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:58:01AM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> >> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:43:23PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> >> > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 05:16:34PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> >> > >   LINK     perf
> >> > > /bin/ld: cannot find -lunwind
> >> > > /bin/ld: cannot find -lunwind-x86_64
> >> > > collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
> >> > > make[1]: *** [perf] Error 1
> >> > > make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
> >> > > make: *** [all] Error 2
> >>
> >> > > I haven't checked this one.. will do tomorrow
> >>
> >> > we need to plug libunwind flags/libs only if
> >> > the $(feature-libunwind) is enabled..
> >>
> >> > NO_LIBUNWIND - user's decision not to link with libunwind or
> >> >                architecture that does not support it
> >>
> >> > $(feature-libunwind) - if it's actually installed
> >>
> >> > attached change fixies that for me, feel free to use/merge it
> >>
> >> Argh, I used tests/make on one machine where those two patches by Jean
> >> were not applied, then rebased on another, the one I use to submit,
> >> those got included but not tests/make tested, which probably explains
> >> why this got thru :-\
> >>
> >> Jean, can you please check that this works for you on ARM too?
> >
> > I just noticed that this patch breaks the feature detection mechanism,
> > after it is applied it is back performing all tests at every make call,
> > this needs rethinking, so I'm dropping both.
> Oh I am sorry about that. I tested on ARM with and without the
> LIBUNWIND_DIR option set.
> Let me rethink/rework this and come back to you with a proper fix.
> 
> >
> > Ingo, please disregard, yet again, my latest pull request, sigh.
> >
> > Jiri, this could be something for tests/make, till then I'll try
> > to check this manually.
> 
> One question though: are you OK with the principle of having
> per-feature check flags? This brings two things to the feature
> detection and build:
> 1. the ability to specify specific flags for the feature check, which
> is not possible on the current code,
> 2. a simplification in the Makefiles.

looks good to me

jirka
--
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/