On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 16:26 -0500, Matthew McClintock wrote:
> __ppc64__ is not defined on powerpc64, rather __powerpc64__ is, this
> uses a patch that is already upstream to fix builds for powerpc64
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock
> ---
> ...PowerPC-checks-for-__NR_perf_counter_open.patch
On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 16:26 -0500, Matthew McClintock wrote:
> __ppc64__ is not defined on powerpc64, rather __powerpc64__ is, this
> uses a patch that is already upstream to fix builds for powerpc64
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock
> ---
> ...PowerPC-checks-for-__NR_perf_counter_open.patch
__ppc64__ is not defined on powerpc64, rather __powerpc64__ is, this
uses a patch that is already upstream to fix builds for powerpc64
Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock
---
...PowerPC-checks-for-__NR_perf_counter_open.patch | 35
meta/recipes-kernel/sysprof/sysprof_git.bb
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
> is sysprof linux specific? if not then this change will mean that it wont work
> on other OSes which dont define __powerpc64__ e.g. darwin. Better solution is
> to
> check for both __ppc64__ and __powerpc64__
>
> but thats something for sysprof up
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Matthew McClintock wrote:
> __ppc64__ is not defined on powerpc64, rather __powerpc64__ is, this
> uses a patch that is already upstream to fix builds for powerpc64
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock
> ---
> ...PowerPC-checks-for-__NR_perf_counter_open.patch |
__ppc64__ is not defined on powerpc64, rather __powerpc64__ is, this
uses a patch that is already upstream to fix builds for powerpc64
Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock
---
...PowerPC-checks-for-__NR_perf_counter_open.patch | 35
meta/recipes-kernel/sysprof/sysprof_git.bb
