Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 7 Dec 2011 12:14:09 -0200 | | From | Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 08/10] perf tool: Unify handling of features when writing feature section |
| |
Em Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 05:33:58PM +0100, Robert Richter escreveu: > On 06.12.11 11:36:30, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > If you fix that please add this warning as well when no build-ids are > > found, which hopefully is the odd case these days as all distros I'm > > aware of have build-ids in all DSOs. > > What about the following change in addition? perf record then still > stops with an error, but --no-buildid could be used to proceed anyway: > > diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-record.c b/tools/perf/builtin-record.c > index 766fa0a..80e08ca 100644 > --- a/tools/perf/builtin-record.c > +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-record.c > @@ -493,6 +493,13 @@ static int __cmd_record(struct perf_record *rec, int argc, const char **argv) > return err; > } > > + if (!no_buildid > + && !perf_header__has_feat(&session->header, HEADER_BUILD_ID)) { > + pr_err("Couldn't collect buildids. " "Your report results may be misleading if profiled " "DSOs changed after the record session.\n" > + "Use --no-buildid option if you know that " "there where no changes in the profiled DSOs.\n"); > + return -1; > + } > + > rec->post_processing_offset = lseek(output, 0, SEEK_CUR);
I can do these changes if you agree with this wording,
- Arnaldo
|  |