On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 07:13:04PM +0300, Max Filippov wrote: > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Anthony G. Basile > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 04/23/15 18:24, Max Filippov wrote: > >> A lot of tests failed because elfutils were built with --disable-progs > >> (otherwise the build fails), and some test binaries failed to build > >> because they call functions not available in uClibc. > > > > You might also want to take a look a [1]. I had to produce a series of > > Wow, I didn't know that gentoo can work with uClibc, that's great. > I'll look at these patches.
If you could work together and see which patches seem reasonable to submit upstream that would be appreciated. I cannot guarantee they will all accepted if they make the code really complicated/broken. And elfutils really is designed to make use of a full featured libc like glibc. So if at all possible I would really recommend not using something like uclibc. But we should do a reasonable attempt to make sure the fork/difference isn't too big. > > patches to get it to build. What did you do about mtrace()? > > I've plugged it with empty definition. We don't really use mtrace() consistently, not all tools call it at the start. Unless someone disagrees I wouldn't mind just removing them. There are other ways to track memory usage. I run valgrind regularly on some of the tools to see whether we have any memory leaks. Although that isn't automated (it probably should). But neither is it automated for the mtrace() case. Cheers, Mark
