Re: [RFC/PATCHSET 0/8] perf tools: Minimal build without libelf dependency (v2)

[Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>]

2012-06-22 (금), 09:18 -0600, David Ahern:
> On 6/22/12 9:05 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > 2012-06-22 (금), 11:47 +0200, Peter Zijlstra:
> >> On Fri, 2012-06-22 at 14:37 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> >>> And then I realized that the perf record needs to know about the
> >>> build-id's anyway. :( So I implemented a poor man's version of elf
> >>> parser only for parsing the build-id info.
> >>
> >> Why? the very first versions didn't know about any of that nonsense :-)
> >> It works just fine as long as you don't go change binaries around.
> >>
> >> That said, you did the work already, so no objection, just saying
> >> builtids aren't that important.
> >
> > I'm not sure I understood you correctly. But 'perf record' needs to know
> > about the build-id's to save them to perf.data for 'perf report' later.
> > And 'perf archive' also needs to know about them to select necessary
> > binaries for the session.
> >
> 
> And build-id's are not required for report (-B option for record).
> 
> Also, the intent is for a small footprint binary for embedded systems. 
> On such a system I would expect binaries and libraries to be stripped, 
> so no point in running perf-archive.
> 

But is there a chance that binaries on host still contains symbol (and
debug) information even for those cases?

-- 
Regards,
Namhyung Kim