[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220704201922.pvrh4cmmjxjn4mkx@awork3.anarazel.de>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2022 13:19:22 -0700
From: Andres Freund <andres@...razel.de>
To: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
Quentin Monnet <quentin@...valent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] tools: fix compilation failure caused by
init_disassemble_info API changes
Hi,
On 2022-07-04 11:13:33 +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> I think the disassembler checks should not be displayed by default,
> with your change I can see all the time:
>
> ... disassembler-four-args: [ on ]
> ... disassembler-init-styled: [ OFF ]
>
>
> could you please squash something like below in? moving disassembler
> checks out of sight and do manual detection
Makes sense - I was wondering why disassembler-four-args is displayed, but
though it better to mirror the existing behaviour. Does "hiding"
disassembler-four-args need to be its own set of commits?
> diff --git a/tools/perf/Makefile.config b/tools/perf/Makefile.config
> index ee417c321adb..2aa0bad11f05 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/Makefile.config
> +++ b/tools/perf/Makefile.config
> @@ -914,8 +914,6 @@ ifndef NO_LIBBFD
> FEATURE_CHECK_LDFLAGS-disassembler-init-styled += -liberty -lz -ldl
> endif
> endif
> - $(call feature_check,disassembler-four-args)
> - $(call feature_check,disassembler-init-styled)
> endif
>
> ifeq ($(feature-libbfd-buildid), 1)
> @@ -1025,6 +1023,9 @@ ifdef HAVE_KVM_STAT_SUPPORT
> CFLAGS += -DHAVE_KVM_STAT_SUPPORT
> endif
>
> +$(call feature_check,disassembler-four-args)
> +$(call feature_check,disassembler-init-styled)
> +
> ifeq ($(feature-disassembler-four-args), 1)
> CFLAGS += -DDISASM_FOUR_ARGS_SIGNATURE
> endif
This I don't understand - why do we want these to run under NO_LIBBFD etc?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
Powered by blists - more mailing lists