Christopher, thank you for pointing out how to tell if the file is stripped. slurmd is not being stripped apparently:
[mkg52@head ~]$ file `which slurmd` /usr/sbin/slurmd: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.18, not stripped On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Michael Kit Gilbert <[email protected]> wrote: > Michael, thank you so much for offering your help! I created a Github gist > here <https://gist.github.com/mkgilbert/4e4e987686d6517aa6548831d80a27c8> > with the output from my rpmbuild, which I did with the following command > (from the root folder that had my other rpm folders in it e.g. BUILD, > SOURCES, etc): > > rpmbuild -ba SPECS/slurm.spec -D '%with_cflags CFLAGS="-O0 -g3"' > > It appears that the CFLAGS are in fact getting used, so maybe it is > actually compiling it the way it needs to, like you said. In regards to > your question about whether or not everything is getting stripped...this is > my first time doing a patch so I'm unfamiliar with exactly what you mean by > that. > > Thanks again for the help! > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Michael Jennings <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> You may still get a message about "debuginfo" RPMs because the SLURM >> spec file disables the building of them, but the RPM configuration and >> GDB configuration on RHEL are done in such a way as to assume that >> they exist. >> >> What really matters is whether or not your binaries and libs have, or >> don't have, the debugging symbols. Are you getting the correct info, >> or is everything still getting stripped? >> >> I could tell you how I build our SLURM packages, but since I use >> Mezzanine, that wouldn't do you much good (unless you wanted to use it >> too). I can say, though, that the end result is very much like >> "rpmbuild --with debug -ta slurm-15.08.9.tar.gz" and does result in >> RPMs that install unstripped binaries and libs. So I know it works; >> we just have to figure out why it's not working for you. >> >> If you want, pastebin a log of your build process, and I can take a >> look and see if I can spot where the problem is occurring. :-) >> >> Michael >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Michael Kit Gilbert <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Thanks for the help everybody. So far I've tried looking for more >> debugging >> > options in the spec file, doing Bjorn's suggestion, and just using >> --with >> > debug like Michael suggested. They all leave me with the same issue >> though. >> > When I try to use gdb by attaching to the slurmd process, it still >> gives the >> > debuginfos error. The only thing I haven't tried yet is compiling >> everything >> > independently instead of patching the rpms. Maybe I'll give that a go. >> > >> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Bjørn-Helge Mevik < >> [email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Michael Kit Gilbert <[email protected]> writes: >> >> >> >> > I'm trying to troubleshoot a problem with a local patch I'm writing >> for >> >> > Slurm and can't seem to get gdb working properly. I've built the rpms >> >> > with >> >> > -D '%_with_cflags CFLAGS="-O0 -g3"' and slurmctld and slurmd appear >> to >> >> > be >> >> >> >> Just a note: I tried this (for a different reason), but found out it >> >> didn't have any effect (gather the output to a log file and look at the >> >> gcc lines). However, if I did -D '%with_cflags CFLAGS="-O0 -g3"' >> (i.e., >> >> removed the initial "_"), it had the desired effect. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Regards, >> >> Bjørn-Helge Mevik, dr. scient, >> >> Department for Research Computing, University of Oslo >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Michael Jennings <[email protected]> >> Senior HPC Systems Engineer >> High-Performance Computing Services >> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory >> Bldg 50B-3209E W: 510-495-2687 >> MS 050B-3209 F: 510-486-8615 >> > >
