----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alexei Starovoitov" <alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com>
> To: "Adam Jackson" <a...@redhat.com>
> Cc: "Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo" <a...@kernel.org>, "Wang Nan"
> <wangn...@huawei.com>, a...@kernel.org,
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Daniel Borkmann" <dan...@iogearbox.net>, "Li
> Zefan" <lize...@huawei.com>,
> pi3or...@163.com, "Dave Airlie" <airl...@redhat.com>
> Sent: Saturday, 23 January, 2016 3:42:30 AM
> Subject: Re: clang --target=bpf missing on f23 was: Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf
> test: Add libbpf relocation checker
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:35:42PM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 14:22 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> >
> > > the 'bpf' target for clang is being used together with perf to
> > > build scriptlets into object code that then gets uploaded to the kernel
> > > via sys_bpf(), was the decision not to include 'bpf' just an accident?
> >
> > I wouldn't call it a "decision", that would imply intent. The main
> > reason I explicitly list targets for llvm is to limit the CPU backends
> > to arches Fedora actually runs on (which itself is because I really
> > only care about llvmpipe, and am only touching llvm because it's in my
> > way). Had no idea there was a bpf backend, so never thought to enable
> > it.
> >
> > llvm-3.7.0-4.fc2{3,4} are building now with the bpf backend enabled,
> > I'll create an update for F23 when it's built.
>
> thanks.
> if you want to reduce the size of binaries, you can probably disable
> nvptx/amdgcn/r600, since I doubt fedora ships with appropriate sdks
> that can take advantage of that.
>
amdgcn is the other reason we ship llvm, we could probably drop nvptx.
Dave.
>
