----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alexei Starovoitov" <[email protected]> > To: "Adam Jackson" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo" <[email protected]>, "Wang Nan" > <[email protected]>, [email protected], > [email protected], "Daniel Borkmann" <[email protected]>, "Li > Zefan" <[email protected]>, > [email protected], "Dave Airlie" <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, 23 January, 2016 3:42:30 AM > Subject: Re: clang --target=bpf missing on f23 was: Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf > test: Add libbpf relocation checker > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:35:42PM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote: > > On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 14:22 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > > > the 'bpf' target for clang is being used together with perf to > > > build scriptlets into object code that then gets uploaded to the kernel > > > via sys_bpf(), was the decision not to include 'bpf' just an accident? > > > > I wouldn't call it a "decision", that would imply intent. The main > > reason I explicitly list targets for llvm is to limit the CPU backends > > to arches Fedora actually runs on (which itself is because I really > > only care about llvmpipe, and am only touching llvm because it's in my > > way). Had no idea there was a bpf backend, so never thought to enable > > it. > > > > llvm-3.7.0-4.fc2{3,4} are building now with the bpf backend enabled, > > I'll create an update for F23 when it's built. > > thanks. > if you want to reduce the size of binaries, you can probably disable > nvptx/amdgcn/r600, since I doubt fedora ships with appropriate sdks > that can take advantage of that. >
amdgcn is the other reason we ship llvm, we could probably drop nvptx. Dave. >
