Linux Perf Users
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
	Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
	James Clark <james.clark@linaro.org>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
	Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] tools build: Don't set libunwind as available if test-all.c build succeeds
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2025 19:36:46 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z_K7ruz8hhvCTbL8@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z_ArFrHU7hMNUOv3@x1>


* Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org> wrote:

> The tools/build/feature/test-all.c file tries to detect the expected,
> most common set of libraries/features we expect to have available to
> build perf with.
> 
> At some point libunwind was deemed not to be part of that set of
> libraries, but the patches making it to be opt-in ended up forgetting
> some details, fix one more.
> 
> Testing it:
> 
>   $ rm -rf /tmp/build/$(basename $PWD)/ ; mkdir -p /tmp/build/$(basename $PWD)/
>   $ rpm -q libunwind-devel
>   libunwind-devel-1.8.0-3.fc40.x86_64
>   $ make -k LIBUNWIND=1 CORESIGHT=1 O=/tmp/build/$(basename $PWD)/ -C tools/perf install-bin |& grep unwind && ldd ~/bin/perf | grep unwind
>   ...                               libunwind: [ on  ]
>     CC      /tmp/build/perf-tools-next/arch/x86/tests/dwarf-unwind.o
>     CC      /tmp/build/perf-tools-next/arch/x86/util/unwind-libunwind.o
>     CC      /tmp/build/perf-tools-next/util/arm64-frame-pointer-unwind-support.o
>     CC      /tmp/build/perf-tools-next/tests/dwarf-unwind.o
>     CC      /tmp/build/perf-tools-next/util/unwind-libunwind-local.o
>     CC      /tmp/build/perf-tools-next/util/unwind-libunwind.o
> 	  libunwind-x86_64.so.8 => /lib64/libunwind-x86_64.so.8 (0x00007f615a549000)
> 	  libunwind.so.8 => /lib64/libunwind.so.8 (0x00007f615a52f000)
>   $ sudo rpm -e libunwind-devel
>   $ rm -rf /tmp/build/$(basename $PWD)/ ; mkdir -p /tmp/build/$(basename $PWD)/
>   $ make -k LIBUNWIND=1 CORESIGHT=1 O=/tmp/build/$(basename $PWD)/ -C tools/perf install-bin |& grep unwind && ldd ~/bin/perf | grep unwind
>   Makefile.config:653: No libunwind found. Please install libunwind-dev[el] >= 1.1 and/or set LIBUNWIND_DIR
>   ...                               libunwind: [ OFF ]
>     CC      /tmp/build/perf-tools-next/arch/x86/tests/dwarf-unwind.o
>     CC      /tmp/build/perf-tools-next/arch/x86/util/unwind-libdw.o
>     CC      /tmp/build/perf-tools-next/util/arm64-frame-pointer-unwind-support.o
>     CC      /tmp/build/perf-tools-next/tests/dwarf-unwind.o
>     CC      /tmp/build/perf-tools-next/util/unwind-libdw.o
>   $

So I'm not sure whether this is related to my libunwind-OFF build 
message bugreport, but in case it is, with this patch applied I still 
get this message both before and after applying the patch:

...                               libunwind: [ OFF ]

Note: I did not add any LIBUNWIND parameters to the build, it's a 
standard 'make clean install' perf build:

  $ make clean install
  ...
  BUILD:   Doing 'make -j128' parallel build
  ...
  ...                               libunwind: [ OFF ]
  ...

All other feature messages indicate '[ on ]'.

It's on a fairly standard x86-64 Ubuntu 24.10 installation, with 
various development libraries installed. Let me know if you need
any debug output or other information!

Thanks,

	Ingo

      parent reply	other threads:[~2025-04-06 17:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-04-04 18:55 [PATCH 1/1] tools build: Don't set libunwind as available if test-all.c build succeeds Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2025-04-04 20:30 ` Namhyung Kim
2025-04-07 19:48   ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2025-04-06 17:36 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=Z_K7ruz8hhvCTbL8@gmail.com \
    --to=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=acme@kernel.org \
    --cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
    --cc=dvyukov@google.com \
    --cc=irogers@google.com \
    --cc=james.clark@linaro.org \
    --cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
    --cc=kan.liang@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox