[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87cy8mcyy4.fsf@gentoo.org>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2025 07:52:03 +0100
From: Sam James <sam@...too.org>
To: sam@...too.org
Cc: acme@...nel.org,adityag@...ux.ibm.com,adrian.hunter@...el.com,ak@...ux.intel.com,alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com,amadio@...too.org,atrajeev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,bpf@...r.kernel.org,chaitanyas.prakash@....com,changbin.du@...wei.com,charlie@...osinc.com,dvyukov@...gle.com,irogers@...gle.com,james.clark@...aro.org,jolsa@...nel.org,justinstitt@...gle.com,kan.liang@...ux.intel.com,kjain@...ux.ibm.com,lihuafei1@...wei.com,linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,llvm@...ts.linux.dev,mark.rutland@....com,mhiramat@...nel.org,mingo@...hat.com,morbo@...gle.com,namhyung@...nel.org,nathan@...nel.org,nick.desaulniers+lkml@...il.com,peterz@...radead.org,sesse@...gle.com,song@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/19] Support dynamic opening of capstone/llvm
remove BUILD_NONDISTRO
> A few months ago, objdump was the only way to get
> source line support [0]. Is that still the case?
... or is this perhaps handled by "[PATCH v5 18/19] perf srcline:
Fallback between addr2line implementations", in which case, shouldn't
that really land first so people can try the LLVM impl and use the
binutils one if it fails?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists