[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADWwUUay9GnMwcQnxC6tnA8zVd1n0SnBiyCbUqb0Lz_Wd7KTzA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 11:02:58 +0900
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
"Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@...wei.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, pi3orama@....com,
David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf record: Add --dry-run option to check cmdline options
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 3:13 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
<acme@...nel.org> wrote:
> Em Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 09:22:11AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov escreveu:
>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:38:18AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>> > Doing:
>
>> > perf bcc -c foo.c
>
>> > Looks so much simpler and similar to an existing compile source code
>> > into object file workflow (gcc's, any C compiler) that I think it would
>> > fit in the workflow being discussed really nicely.
>
>> I'm hopeful that eventually we'll be able merge iovisor/bcc project
>> with perf, so would be good to reserve 'perf bcc' command for that
>> future use. Also picking a different name for compiling would be less
>> confusing to users who already familiar with bcc. Instead we can use:
>> perf bpfcc foo.c -o foo.o
>> perf cc foo.c
>
> 'perf cc' seems sensible, and has the added bonus of being one letter
> shorter :-)
>
> - Arnaldo
>
>> perf compile foo.c
What about this?
perf bpf --compile foo.c or,
perf bpf --cc foo.c
Thanks,
Namhyung
Powered by blists - more mailing lists