From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754834AbcAVR4L (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 22 Jan 2016 12:56:11 -0500
Received: from www62.your-server.de ([213.133.104.62]:39503 "EHLO
	www62.your-server.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754415AbcAVR4J (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 22 Jan 2016 12:56:09 -0500
Message-ID: <56A26D32.90806@iogearbox.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 18:56:02 +0100
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Adam Jackson <ajax@redhat.com>, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
CC: Wang Nan <wangnan0@huawei.com>, ast@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>,
        pi3orama@163.com, Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: clang --target=bpf missing on f23 was:  Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf
 test: Add libbpf relocation checker
References: <1453454841-232334-1-git-send-email-wangnan0@huawei.com>	 <1453454841-232334-2-git-send-email-wangnan0@huawei.com>	 <20160122154050.GH4034@kernel.org>	 <20160122170749.GA9608@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com>	 <20160122172222.GI4034@kernel.org> <1453484142.2587.7.camel@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <1453484142.2587.7.camel@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Authenticated-Sender: daniel@iogearbox.net
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 01/22/2016 06:35 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 14:22 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>
>> 	the 'bpf' target for clang is being used together with perf to
>> build scriptlets into object code that then gets uploaded to the kernel
>> via sys_bpf(), was the decision not to include 'bpf' just an accident?
>
> I wouldn't call it a "decision", that would imply intent. The main
> reason I explicitly list targets for llvm is to limit the CPU backends
> to arches Fedora actually runs on (which itself is because I really
> only care about llvmpipe, and am only touching llvm because it's in my
> way). Had no idea there was a bpf backend, so never thought to enable
> it.
>
> llvm-3.7.0-4.fc2{3,4} are building now with the bpf backend enabled,
> I'll create an update for F23 when it's built.

Awesome, thanks!