* Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Jon Bernard" <[email protected]> > > To: "Ondřej Surý" <[email protected]> > > Cc: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <[email protected]>, "Michael Jeanson" > > <[email protected]>, "lttng-dev" > > <[email protected]> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 4:18:48 PM > > Subject: Re: Debian specific userspace RCU configure override > > > > * Ondřej Surý <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sun, May 25, 2014, at 2:59, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > > > Why are each package compiled against completely different targets ? > > > > > > urcu invokes ./configure manually while ltt-control uses > > > dh_auto_configure wrapper and that makes the difference > > > > This is correct. When I first saw the difference, I assumed they would > > both invoke configure in a way that wouldn't effect the target. But now > > I remember having a similar problem on sparc (which is why urcu includes > > this override) where the target discovery was not correct. > > > > It looks to me like a bug related to debhelper (which provides > > dh_auto_configure). For now, I think this override applied to > > lttng-tools will correctly fix the build without disabling dmb. I will > > let the existing transition into testing complete and then submit new > > packages. > > The big question here: is it OK to generate "dmb" instruction ? If the > intent of this architecture support is to cover earlier-than-armv7 ARM > processors, then "dmb" should not be explicitly generated, and therefore > URCU configuration would need fixing. If the intent of this Debian arch > is to cover only ARMv7 and better, then it's lttng-tools that needs > fixing.
I was assuming the latter, that only ARMv7 and better would be covered, but this is a very good point and I will seek clarification before I make any changes. I will let you know what I find out. -- Jon _______________________________________________ lttng-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
