Ted Leung <t...@sauria.com> added the comment: I didn't run auto(re)conf. After I did that, all was well. However, the ustack provider doesn't appear to be working correctly. I tried running the py_profile.d from the DTrace toolkit, and it doesn't show any stack traces, and when the script starts up it says
cc1: warning: /dev/fd/5 is shorter than expected The basic function entry/exit probes appear to be working. John +nosy'ed himself, so perhaps he'll have some insight? On Jan 27, 2009, at 3:39 PM, Skip Montanaro wrote: > > Skip Montanaro <s...@pobox.com> added the comment: > > Ted> I tried building this on my Mac and got this; > > Forgive me if I'm preaching to the choir here. > > Did you run autoconf or autoreconf after applying the patch? If not, > @DTRACEOBJS@ would not be a substitutable string. It's fairly > common (at > least in the Python community) to omit modified configure scripts > from these > sorts of patches because the changes to generated configure scripts > between > different versions of autoconf are so massive that they dwarf the > actual > functional changes in the patch, often by a couple orders of > magnitude. > > Skip > > _______________________________________ > Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> > <http://bugs.python.org/issue4111> > _______________________________________ _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue4111> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
