> Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 13:35:55 +0200
> From: Ole-Morten Duesund <olemd@xxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: olemd@xxxxxxx
> To: owner-pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: PCP on sparc-linux
>
> Hi, I'v ported pcp to work on sparc-linux too... Actually ported is a
> big word, just a tiny patch really but it took some time to figure out
> (doesn't it always?)
>
> Anyway, I've attached the patch against 2.1.7, I know it doesn't break
> anything on x86 at least - and I can't imagine it breaking anything
> anywhere else either. And most(?) importantly, it actually does work on
> sparc-linux.
Hi Ole-Morten,
sorry this took so long to respond (somehow I missed your original mail).
I'm just looking at your "pcp for sparc-linux" patch, and have a
few questions;
1. for sparc linux, do you explicitly need -fPIC for shared libraries
that will be loaded with dlopen at run time (such as pmdalinux.so)?
Or do you need it for everything? If it's just for loadable shared
libraries, then it should probably become a configure thing that is
conditionally added to LCFLAGS in Makefiles for libraries that actually
need it.
2. your other change was to proc_interrupts.h with some __sparc__
conditional header includes. Were these extra headers only needed
for the #include <linux/kernel_stat.h> immediately below? It turns
out that kernel_stat.h is not actually needed - this is left over
code from an earlier implementation ... so I'll just delete the
unneeded include rather than add the conditional sparc code.
thanks
-- Mark
|