On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:22:21PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:12:14PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:39:22AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:54:56PM +0000, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > > hi, > > > > I'm following up on latest post from Alexis: > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=141427580405357&w=2 > > > > > > > > v2 changes: > > > > - build Makefiles librarized and moved to 'tools/build' [Ingo] > > > > - several minor fixies [Namhyung] > > > > - tested on other archs now - x86_64, i386, powerpc > > > > - moved tools/lib/* under new build framework to show > > > > that it's possible ;-) > > > > included traceevent/lockdep maintainers to get the feedback > > > > - omitted last 2 patches > > > > > > > > The patchset is also available in: > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jolsa/perf.git > > > > perf/build > > > > > > > > All tests/make tests passed. > > > > > > > > Any feedback from ARM guys would be great ;-) > > > > > > [adding Mark Rutland to Cc] > > > > Cheers. > > > > I just tried a cross-build for arm, and that blew up when trying to do > > something with arch/arm/util/libperf-in.o (log below). I bisected that > > to f169fbc4c59dd9d4 "perf build: Add arch x86 objects building". I'm > > looking into why now. > > I get a similar failure doing a native arm64 build. I think the problem is > because the arch/ files for arm and arm64 aren't always required (i.e. there > are configurations where nothing is built under there) and, consequently, > libperf-in.o isn't actually needed and we try to link against something that > doesn't exist.
exactly ;-) I'll spin v3 shortly.. thanks, jirka -- 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/
