Re: [PATCHv2 1/9] perf tools: Add build id shell test

[Jiri Olsa]

On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 10:37:45AM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 4:29 AM Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 10:34:51AM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> > > > > +
> > > > >  LIBJVMTI = libperf-jvmti.so
> > > > >
> > > > >  ifndef NO_JVMTI
> > > > > @@ -756,6 +763,13 @@ $(OUTPUT)perf-read-vdsox32: perf-read-vdso.c util/find-map.c
> > > > >         $(QUIET_CC)$(CC) -mx32 $(filter -static,$(LDFLAGS)) -Wall -Werror -o $@ perf-read-vdso.c
> > > > >  endif
> > > > >
> > > > > +ifndef NO_BUILDID_EX
> > > > > +$(OUTPUT)buildid-ex-sha1:
> > > > > +       $(QUIET_LINK)echo 'int main(void) { return 0; }' | $(CC) -Wl,--build-id=sha1 -o $@ -x c -
> > > > > +$(OUTPUT)buildid-ex-md5:
> > > > > +       $(QUIET_LINK)echo 'int main(void) { return 0; }' | $(CC) -Wl,--build-id=md5 -o $@ -x c -
> > > > > +endif
> > > >
> > > > Can we just build them in the test shell script instead?
> >
> > it would solve the build-directory/install-directory
> > lookup search.. but it'd need to do detect compiler
> > and depend on it as Ian said
> >
> > do you have some other reason to compile it in test?
> 
> No I just wanted to make it easy to find the binaries
> and assumed a compiler is available in the test machine
> (which is not true for my company setup.... :-/)
> 
> But otherwise we should keep the binaries somewhere
> in the install directory..

hum, could we go in with the v3 and then you guys
could customize it to what would work for you?

thanks,
jirka