Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC/PATCHSET 0/8] perf tools: Minimal build without libelf dependency (v2) | From | Namhyung Kim <> | Date | Sat, 23 Jun 2012 00:30:00 +0900 |
| |
2012-06-22 (금), 09:18 -0600, David Ahern: > On 6/22/12 9:05 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote: > > 2012-06-22 (금), 11:47 +0200, Peter Zijlstra: > >> On Fri, 2012-06-22 at 14:37 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote: > >>> And then I realized that the perf record needs to know about the > >>> build-id's anyway. :( So I implemented a poor man's version of elf > >>> parser only for parsing the build-id info. > >> > >> Why? the very first versions didn't know about any of that nonsense :-) > >> It works just fine as long as you don't go change binaries around. > >> > >> That said, you did the work already, so no objection, just saying > >> builtids aren't that important. > > > > I'm not sure I understood you correctly. But 'perf record' needs to know > > about the build-id's to save them to perf.data for 'perf report' later. > > And 'perf archive' also needs to know about them to select necessary > > binaries for the session. > > > > And build-id's are not required for report (-B option for record). > > Also, the intent is for a small footprint binary for embedded systems. > On such a system I would expect binaries and libraries to be stripped, > so no point in running perf-archive. >
But is there a chance that binaries on host still contains symbol (and debug) information even for those cases?
-- Regards, Namhyung Kim
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |