[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090801082048.GX12579@kernel.dk>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 10:20:48 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>
Cc: 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
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 :-)
--
Jens Axboe
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists