在 2021年02月24日 08:37, HAGIO KAZUHITO(萩尾 一仁) 写道:
> Hi Lianbo, Hatayama-san,
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>>> For the 'make lzo', the cflag '-DVALGRIND' is also added here after the
>>>> step1, is that expected?
>>> As written in the README, these targets are sticky, so it's expected:
>>>
>>> All of the alternate build commands above are "sticky" in that the
>>> special "make" targets only have to be entered one time; all subsequent
>>> builds will follow suit.
>>>
>>> AFAIK, the only command that can drop a target is "make nowarn", otherwise
>>> we can drop "lzo" and so on by removing CFLAGS.extra and LDFLAGS.extra for
>>> the present.
>>>
>> Seems yes. Is it possible to separate these CFLAGS? And we may put them
>> together when
>> it is needed, For example:
>>
>> make lzo (-DLZO)
>> make valgrind (-DVALGRIND)
>> make lzo_valgrind (-DVALGRIND -DLZO)
>
> sorry I'm not sure what you mean with the "separate these CFLAGS", but
> "make lzo valgrind" builds a crash with -DLZO first, and then rebuilds
> it with -DLZO and -DVALGRIND. Doesn't this satisfy your expectation?
>
Thanks for your explanation. That is just what I expected.
>
> However, I found that the "make lzo valgrind" might not work well with
> this v1 patch, thanks to Lianbo.
>
> Hatayama-san, do we need to unlink tools.o like lzo and snappy below
> to rebuild tools.c with -DVALGRIND for e.g. "make lzo valgrind" ?
>
This should be needed.
> 1757 if ((lzo || snappy) &&
> 1758 file_exists("diskdump.o") && (unlink("diskdump.o") < 0)) {
> 1759 perror("diskdump.o");
> 1760 return;
> 1761 }
>
>>
>> But I'm not sure if it looks more reasonable. Anyway, this is another issue.
>
> Yes, if you need to change the current target handling, let's discuss it
> separately from this patchset.
>
OK. Thanks.
--
Crash-utility mailing list
[email protected]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
