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

[David Ahern]

On 6/22/12 9:05 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> 2012-06-22 (ê), 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.


David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/