From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752427Ab3JGV5P (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Oct 2013 17:57:15 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:21990 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751456Ab3JGV5N (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Oct 2013 17:57:13 -0400 Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 23:57:05 +0200 From: Jiri Olsa To: Ingo Molnar Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Namhyung Kim , David Ahern Subject: Re: [PATCH 36/50] tools/perf/build: Speed up auto-detection Message-ID: <20131007215704.GD2900@krava.redhat.com> References: <1381147003-2574-1-git-send-email-mingo@kernel.org> <1381147003-2574-37-git-send-email-mingo@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1381147003-2574-37-git-send-email-mingo@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 01:56:29PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: SNIP > -FEATURE_TESTS = \ > - hello \ > - stackprotector-all \ > - stackprotector \ > - volatile-register-var \ > +# > +# Note that this is not a complete list of all feature tests, just > +# those that are typically built on a fully configured system. > +# > +# [ Feature tests not mentioned here have to be built explicitly in > +# the rule that uses them - an example for that is the 'bionic' > +# feature check. ] > +# > +CORE_FEATURE_TESTS = \ > + backtrace \ > + dwarf \ > fortify-source \ > - bionic \ > - libelf \ > glibc \ > - dwarf \ > - libelf-mmap \ > - libelf-getphdrnum \ > - libunwind \ > - libaudit \ > - libslang \ > gtk2 \ > gtk2-infobar \ > + libaudit \ > + libbfd \ > + libelf \ > + libelf-getphdrnum \ > + libelf-mmap \ > + libnuma \ > libperl \ > libpython \ > libpython-version \ > - libbfd \ > + libslang \ > + libunwind \ > on-exit \ > - backtrace \ > - libnuma > + stackprotector-all \ missing stackprotector? I guess that various gcc version could support either of them or both.. so we need to check for both looks like -fstack-protector-all overloads -fstack-protector but no harm to have them both added probably ;-) jirka