On 2015/09/29 08:53AM, Jiri Olsa wrote: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:06:17AM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote: > > On 2015/09/24 10:15PM, Naveen N Rao wrote: > > > On 2015/09/24 08:32AM, Stephane Eranian wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 5:57 AM, Jiri Olsa <jo...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 05:41:58PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote: > > > > > > perf build currently fails on powerpc: > > > > > > > > > > > > LINK perf > > > > > > libperf.a(libperf-in.o):(.toc+0x120): undefined reference to > > > > > > `sample_reg_masks' > > > > > > libperf.a(libperf-in.o):(.toc+0x130): undefined reference to > > > > > > `sample_reg_masks' > > > > > > collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status > > > > > > make[1]: *** [perf] Error 1 > > > > > > make: *** [all] Error 2 > > > > > > > > > > > > This is due to parse-regs-options.c using sample_reg_masks, which is > > > > > > defined only with CONFIG_PERF_REGS. > > > > > > > > > > > > In addition, perf record -I is only useful if the arch supports > > > > > > PERF_REGS. Hence, let's expose -I conditionally. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n....@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > > > > > > > hum, I wonder why we have sample_reg_masks defined as weak in > > > > > util/perf_regs.c > > > > > which is also built only via CONFIG_PERF_REGS > > > > > > > > > > I wonder we could get rid of the weak definition via attached patch, > > > > > Stephane? > > > > > > > > > But the whole point of having it weak is to avoid this error scenario > > > > on any arch without support > > > > and avoid ugly #ifdef HAVE_ in generic files. > > > > > > > > if perf_regs.c is compiled on PPC, then why do we get the undefined? > > > > > > As Jiri Olsa pointed out, powerpc and many other architectures don't > > > (yet) have support for perf regs. > > > > > > But, the larger reason to introduce #ifdef is so the user doesn't see > > > options (s)he can't use on a specific architecture, along the same lines > > > as builtin-probe.c > > > > Stephane, Arnaldo, > > Suka has also posted a fix for this with a different approach [1]. Can > > you please ack/pull one of these versions? Building perf is broken on > > v4.3-rc due to this. > > I did not get any answer for additional comments I made to the patch > (couldnt get marc.info working, sending the patch again)
Hi Jiri, I concur with the changes you proposed to my patch here (getting rid of the weak variant): http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/2046108 I am aware of the other approach you posted (and the one attached below). When I said "please ack/pull one of these versions", I meant one of: your version, Suka's and mine. > > > > > [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/2046370 > > I dont have this last version, which seems to have other changes > and patch in above link looks mangled, could you please repost it? Can you please check the raw version: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/2046370/raw Thanks, Naveen _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
