From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932469AbcFUCtj (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jun 2016 22:49:39 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f170.google.com ([209.85.192.170]:35006 "EHLO mail-pf0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752073AbcFUCth (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jun 2016 22:49:37 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf record: Add --dry-run option to check cmdline options To: Namhyung Kim , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo References: <1466064161-48553-1-git-send-email-wangnan0@huawei.com> <1466064161-48553-3-git-send-email-wangnan0@huawei.com> <20160616164815.GE13337@kernel.org> <57676309.8000907@huawei.com> <20160620143818.GA3050@redhat.com> <20160620162208.GA67352@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com> <20160620181343.GA3602@kernel.org> Cc: Alexei Starovoitov , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , "Wangnan (F)" , LKML , pi3orama@163.com, Alexei Starovoitov , Jiri Olsa From: David Ahern Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 20:49:20 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 6/20/16 8:02 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote: > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 3:13 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo > wrote: >> Em Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 09:22:11AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov escreveu: >>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:38:18AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: >>>> Doing: >> >>>> perf bcc -c foo.c >> >>>> Looks so much simpler and similar to an existing compile source code >>>> into object file workflow (gcc's, any C compiler) that I think it would >>>> fit in the workflow being discussed really nicely. >> >>> I'm hopeful that eventually we'll be able merge iovisor/bcc project >>> with perf, so would be good to reserve 'perf bcc' command for that >>> future use. Also picking a different name for compiling would be less >>> confusing to users who already familiar with bcc. Instead we can use: >>> perf bpfcc foo.c -o foo.o >>> perf cc foo.c >> >> 'perf cc' seems sensible, and has the added bonus of being one letter >> shorter :-) >> >> - Arnaldo >> >>> perf compile foo.c > > What about this? > > perf bpf --compile foo.c or, > perf bpf --cc foo.c That sounds more reasonable to me than 'perf cc'.