On 2015/12/7 18:32, Wangnan (F) wrote:
On 2015/12/7 18:29, Jiri Olsa wrote:
On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 05:22:41PM +0800, Wangnan (F) wrote:
Sorry for the late response...
Tested-by: Wang Nan
But I'm thinking whether we can remove FEATURE-DUMP and rely on
FEATURE-INCLUDE only, since they con
On 2015/12/7 18:29, Jiri Olsa wrote:
On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 05:22:41PM +0800, Wangnan (F) wrote:
Sorry for the late response...
Tested-by: Wang Nan
But I'm thinking whether we can remove FEATURE-DUMP and rely on
FEATURE-INCLUDE only, since they contain same information...
had the same tho
On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 05:22:41PM +0800, Wangnan (F) wrote:
> Sorry for the late response...
>
> Tested-by: Wang Nan
>
> But I'm thinking whether we can remove FEATURE-DUMP and rely on
> FEATURE-INCLUDE only, since they contain same information...
had the same thought, but the issue I hit is t
Sorry for the late response...
Tested-by: Wang Nan
But I'm thinking whether we can remove FEATURE-DUMP and rely on
FEATURE-INCLUDE only, since they contain same information...
Thank you.
On 2015/12/7 16:56, Jiri Olsa wrote:
ping, Wang Nan, any comments on these 2?
thanks,
jirka
On Fri, Nov
ping, Wang Nan, any comments on these 2?
thanks,
jirka
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:06:50AM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> Creating the FEATURE-INCLUDE file, that contains all features
> status dumped in make's variable format:
>...
>feature-backtrace=1
>feature-dwarf=1
>...
>
> It's pu
5 matches
Mail list logo