linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] basic perf support for sparc

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 1 Aug 2009 15:22:16 -0300
From:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc:	Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>, davem@...emloft.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
	fweisbec@...il.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	benh@...nel.crashing.org, penberg@...helsinki.fi,
	vegard.nossum@...il.com, paulus@...ba.org, williams@...hat.com,
	acme@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] basic perf support for sparc

Em Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 10:20:48AM +0200, Jens Axboe escreveu:
> On Sat, Aug 01 2009, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > > > Building the perf tool is somewhat involved on sparc64
> > > > though, since 64-bit versions of zlib/libelf/bfd aren't
> > > > directly available (at least on debian 5.x). But once you
> > > > get there, it runs :-). Would it be easier/functional
> > > > to build 32-bit userland perf instead?
> > > 
> > > Same is true on ppc64, btw. How are others handling this?
> > 
> > The requirement for libz was removed, so up until recently we only needed
> > a 64bit version of elfutils which is easy to build.
> > 
> > It looks like we now have a requirement on binutils which is considerably
> > more painful to build. One option is to make the bfd requirement optional, all
> > you lose would be the ability to see c++ demangled names I think.
> 
> Right, binutils is the ugly one. I got a libbfd.so built for both ppc
> and sparc, but it wasn't just a make && make install job. Personally I
> could not care less about losing c++ demangled name support, so that
> approach sounds fine to me :-)

Exactly, for a huge number of developers not being able to see demangled
C++ is okay, so I agree on adding smarts to not demangle when
binutils-devel is not available.

I thought about extracting the demangling bits out of binutils, ran away
screaming. I also hoped elfutils would have that by now, but it doesn't.

- Arnaldo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/