From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Davidson Subject: Re: [PATCH] Monotonic time test: Don't force static compilation of time_test Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:13:17 -0700 Message-ID: <6cc912951003231313x1451cdd7i1ef2c13df0b969be@mail.gmail.com> References: <1269368002-12652-1-git-send-email-lmr@redhat.com> <33307c791003231125s770c8034t2859fde10c10cf5f@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2045475541==" Cc: autotest@test.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Martin Bligh Return-path: In-Reply-To: <33307c791003231125s770c8034t2859fde10c10cf5f@mail.gmail.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Mime-version: 1.0 Sender: autotest-bounces@test.kernel.org Errors-To: autotest-bounces@test.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org --===============2045475541== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e68f9fcdb7b15f04827d7170 --0016e68f9fcdb7b15f04827d7170 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 This sounds fine to me - since the test is normally being built on the machine on which it is going to be run there is no need to build a static linked binary. I suspect that the --static in the Makefile is just a throwback to some point in time at which I was building the test on a development machine and running it on a number of test systems which were not guaranteed to have a compatible set of shared libraries on them, md On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Martin Bligh wrote: > +cc:md (he wrote the test). > > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues > wrote: > > The Makefile for the monotonic_test C program forces static > > compilation of the object files. Since we are compiling the > > code already, not having a static binary doesn't make much > > of a difference on the systems we are running this test. > > > > As the static compilation might fail in some boxes, just remove > > this constraint from the Makefile. > > I presume this was to fix some Google interdependency. > Is it actually breaking something? If not, seems safer to leave it? > If so, we'll have to fix one end or the other ;-) > > > Signed-off-by: Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues > > --- > > client/tests/monotonic_time/src/Makefile | 1 - > > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/client/tests/monotonic_time/src/Makefile > b/client/tests/monotonic_time/src/Makefile > > index 56aa7b6..2121ec4 100644 > > --- a/client/tests/monotonic_time/src/Makefile > > +++ b/client/tests/monotonic_time/src/Makefile > > @@ -1,7 +1,6 @@ > > CC= cc > > > > CFLAGS= -O -std=gnu99 -Wall > > -LDFLAGS=-static > > LIBS= -lpthread -lrt > > > > PROG= time_test > > -- > > 1.6.6.1 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Autotest mailing list > > Autotest@test.kernel.org > > http://test.kernel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/autotest > > > --0016e68f9fcdb7b15f04827d7170 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This sounds fine to me - since the test is normally being built on the
m= achine on which it is going to be run there is no need to build a
static= linked binary.

I suspect that the --static in the Makefile is just = a throwback to some
point in time at which I was building the test on a development machine
= and running it on a number of test systems which were not guaranteed
to = have a compatible set of shared libraries on them,

md

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Martin Bligh <mbligh@google.com> wrote:
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 2= 04, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> +cc:md (he wrote the test).

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues
<lmr@redhat.com> wrote:
> The Makefile for the monotonic_test C program forces static
> compilation of the object files. Since we are compiling the
> code already, not having a static binary doesn't make much
> of a difference on the systems we are running this test.
>
> As the static compilation might fail in some boxes, just remove
> this constraint from the Makefile.

I presume this was to fix some Google interdependency.
Is it actually breaking something? If not, seems safer to leave it?
If so, we'll have to fix one end or the other ;-)

> Signed-off-by: Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues <lmr@redhat.com>
> ---
> =A0client/tests/monotonic_time/src/Makefile | =A0 =A01 -
> =A01 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/client/tests/monotonic_time/src/Makefile b/client/tests/m= onotonic_time/src/Makefile
> index 56aa7b6..2121ec4 100644
> --- a/client/tests/monotonic_time/src/Makefile
> +++ b/client/tests/monotonic_time/src/Makefile
> @@ -1,7 +1,6 @@
> =A0CC=3D =A0 =A0cc
>
> =A0CFLAGS=3D =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0-O -std=3Dgnu99 -Wall
> -LDFLAGS=3D-static
> =A0LIBS=3D =A0-lpthread -lrt
>
> =A0PROG=3D =A0time_test
> --
> 1.6.6.1
>
> _______________________________________________
> Autotest mailing list
> Autotest@test.kernel.org
> http://test.kernel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/autotest
>

--0016e68f9fcdb7b15f04827d7170-- --===============2045475541== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Autotest mailing list Autotest@test.kernel.org http://test.kernel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/autotest --===============2045475541==--