Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 2 Aug 2009 20:41:48 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] basic perf support for sparc |
| |
* Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com> wrote:
> Em Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 10:20:48AM +0200, Jens Axboe escreveu: > > On Sat, Aug 01 2009, Anton Blanchard wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Building the perf tool is somewhat involved on sparc64 > > > > > though, since 64-bit versions of zlib/libelf/bfd aren't > > > > > directly available (at least on debian 5.x). But once you > > > > > get there, it runs :-). Would it be easier/functional > > > > > to build 32-bit userland perf instead? > > > > > > > > Same is true on ppc64, btw. How are others handling this? > > > > > > The requirement for libz was removed, so up until recently we only needed > > > a 64bit version of elfutils which is easy to build. > > > > > > It looks like we now have a requirement on binutils which is considerably > > > more painful to build. One option is to make the bfd requirement optional, all > > > you lose would be the ability to see c++ demangled names I think. > > > > Right, binutils is the ugly one. I got a libbfd.so built for > > both ppc and sparc, but it wasn't just a make && make install > > job. Personally I could not care less about losing c++ demangled > > name support, so that approach sounds fine to me :-) > > Exactly, for a huge number of developers not being able to see > demangled C++ is okay, so I agree on adding smarts to not demangle > when binutils-devel is not available. > > I thought about extracting the demangling bits out of binutils, > ran away screaming. I also hoped elfutils would have that by now, > but it doesn't.
Could we somehow define a weak symbol for those library functions ourselves and thus just fall back to that (which does nothing) instead of failing the link?
Ingo
| |