linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf record: Add --dry-run option to check cmdline options

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]

Message-ID: <ed89931e-ccd1-9a25-20eb-c157e71fc15b@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 20 Jun 2016 20:49:20 -0600
From:	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>,
	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,
	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 6/20/16 8:02 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> 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

That sounds more reasonable to me than 'perf cc'.