From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QEEK1-0002b7-Gi for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 07:26:57 +0200 Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 Apr 2011 22:24:28 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,264,1301900400"; d="scan'208";a="737953436" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.12.237]) ([10.255.12.237]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 Apr 2011 22:24:27 -0700 Message-ID: <4DB5058B.3090904@linux.intel.com> Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 22:24:27 -0700 From: Saul Wold User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100621 Fedora/3.0.5-1.fc13 Lightning/1.0b2pre Thunderbird/3.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Cui, Dexuan" References: <4DB48532.3030605@linux.intel.com> <1865303E0DED764181A9D882DEF65FB69317AB0ED9@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> <1865303E0DED764181A9D882DEF65FB69317AB0EDB@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <1865303E0DED764181A9D882DEF65FB69317AB0EDB@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> Cc: "'poky@yoctoproject.org'" , 'Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer' Subject: Re: gdb and lttng-ust 0.12 X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 05:26:57 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 04/24/2011 10:14 PM, Cui, Dexuan wrote: > Hi Saul, > I prefer "continue with UST disabled in gdb" for now. > Ok, I have a patch queue'ed up already with this fix, I will push it as part of a consolidated request later tonight. > I'm investigating more to get an in-depth understanding about the issue. e.g., ust-0.11 doesn't break building gdb while ust-0.12 does -- however both 0.11 and 0.12 install /usr/include/ust/. > I agree, I am not sure why this is happening also, I thought that I did installs of 0.11 and did not see the ust directory, maybe I did not force or something. Maybe diff the marker.h files and see if there are differences? Sau! > Thanks, > -- Dexuan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Cui, Dexuan > Sent: 2011年4月25日 9:57 > To: 'Saul Wold'; 'Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer' > Cc: poky@yoctoproject.org > Subject: RE: gdb and lttng-ust 0.12 > > Hi Saul, > Thanks very much for the investigation! > I can reproduce the issue now when I build gdb after building lttng-ust (previously looks I built them in the reverse order, so didn't catch it.) > > I haven't understood why this issue occurred after I upgraded ust from 0.11 to 0.12 as 0.11 actually installs /usr/include/ust, too. And gdb was not upgraded recently. > > I'm looking into this now and will update asap. > > Thanks, > -- Dexuan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Saul Wold [mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com] > Sent: 2011年4月25日 4:17 > To: Cui, Dexuan; 'Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer' > Cc: poky@yoctoproject.org > Subject: gdb and lttng-ust 0.12 > > > Dexuan, > > It seems that when you updated lttng-ust to 0.12, it installed an > /usr/include/ust directory that GDB now finds. This caused the > gdbserver code to not build. > > I investigated this and it seems to be due to gdb having a dependency on > UST that causes GDB not to compile. I think at this point we may want > to continue with UST disabled in gdb. > > To reproduce this, ensure that lttng-ust-0.12 is built before building > gdb and you should see a compilation failure. > > My concern here is that if fix the GDB compilation failures, what else > is going to fail as far as debugging with UST enabled on the remote, I > know this feature is something we want, and should probably report to > the GDB upstream. > > The fix seems to be as simple as adding "--without-ust" to the gdb > EXTRA_OECONF line. > > Comments? >