Re: [PATCH] perf tools: support static build

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 01:02:43PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Seems to work fine here on a 32 bit Fedora,
> > > provided that I supply NO_64BIT (my kernel
> > > is 64 bit with 32 bit userspace).
> > > 
> > > So this worked for me:
> > > [perf]$ $make -s -j LDFLAGS=-static NO_64BIT=yes 
> > > Makefile:498: No libdwarf.h found or old libdwarf.h found, disables dwarf support. Please install libdwarf-dev/libdwarf-devel >= 20081231
> > > PERF_VERSION = 0.0.2.PERF
> > > Makefile:498: No libdwarf.h found or old libdwarf.h found, disables dwarf support. Please install libdwarf-dev/libdwarf-devel >= 20081231
> > >     * new build flags or prefix
> > > /usr/lib/gcc/i586-redhat-linux/4.4.1/../../../libpthread.a(libpthread.o): In function `sem_open':
> > > (.text+0x69ea): warning: the use of `mktemp' is dangerous, better use `mkstemp'
> > > [perf]$ ldd perf
> > >         not a dynamic executable
> > >
> > > Ingo, could you please apply my debugging patch and then run with V=2?
> > 
> > Still doesnt work here (on a 32-bit/32-bit system, F11) - i've applied 
> > your debug patch and added V=2:
> > 
> >  earth4:~/tip/tools/perf> make -s -j LDFLAGS=-static NO_64BIT=yes V=2
> >  /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lpthread
> >  collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
> >  Makefile:493: *** No libelf.h/libelf found, please install 
> >  libelf-dev/elfutils-libelf-devel and glibc-dev[el].  Stop.
> 
> Aha, you need to install glibc-static in fedora.
> That will provide libpthread.a. Maybe add a comment
> about that?
> 
> You also need zlib-static if you want libbfd to work.

I suspect it would be nice if the Makefile printed out this info, 
instead of a somewhat cryptic error message.

> Fedora does not package a static version of libdwarf,
> so users will need to build that from source if they want
> dwarf support in a static binary.
> Fedora guidelines say:
> 	In general, packagers are strongly encouraged not to ship static libs
> 	unless a compelling reason exists. 
> Do you think the ability to create a portable perf binary that
> I can copy around linux systems qualify as a compelling reason?

To me it certainly does qualify ;-)

	Ingo