Hi Jiri, Will, On 24 September 2013 12:06, Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:34:50AM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:55:32AM +0200, Jean Pihet wrote: >> > Ping on the series. The two patches above (3/4 and 4/4) are generic >> > while the two others are impacting ARM only. >> > Is it possible to get an Ack for the generic ones? >> >> I'm fine with those changes.. still I'm sort of worried about >> current DWARF unwind users (but not sure if there're any), >> who depends on packaged libunwind compiled without >> --enable-debug-frame option. > > Since x86 is the only architecture using libunwind with perf at the moment, > and I'd expect it to use .eh_frame for unwinding, I'm also not sure there > are any existing users to worry about. Right
> >> I've seen your libunwind patch to make it default, but >> not sure if it was accepted.. if not, maybe we should >> detect this and build that code conditionaly. > > It certainly defaults to "on" for ARM, but other architectures have to > enable it explicitly afaict. Yes that is correct. This patch (3/4) detects if the debug frame code is enabled in libunwind and uses the lib only if it is the case. Users that want the feature have to enable it explicitly; the commit description documents how to do that. So I think we are safe here. > > Will Thanks, Jean -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
