From: Daniel H. <dan...@li...> - 2008-01-31 16:50:39
Attachments:
libopagent_version_info.patch
|
Hi! This patch adds a feature to get version information (major + minor number) of the opagent library. E.g. the JVMTI agent can use function op_major_version() and op_minor_version() to get the specific numbers. Additionally this version info will be put out when the JVM ist started using the following command line option: java -agentlib:jvmti_oprofile=version Please review and give comments on that patch. Kind regards, Daniel Hansel |
From: John L. <le...@mo...> - 2008-01-31 17:06:04
|
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 05:20:50PM +0100, Daniel Hansel wrote: > +__asm__(".symver op_major_version_1_0,op_major_version@OPAGENT_1.0"); > +__asm__(".symver op_minor_version_1_0,op_minor_version@OPAGENT_1.0"); > + > +int op_major_version_1_0(void) > +{ > + return 1; > +} > + > +int op_minor_version_1_0(void) > +{ > + return 0; > +} I don't think this is necessary, you can just leave out the asm and do op_major/minor_version() We only need this symver stuff when we have two symbols with the same name but different implementations. We haven't even released 1.0 yet, so that can't happen. Otherwise looks fine regards john |
From: Daniel H. <dan...@li...> - 2008-02-01 14:50:42
Attachments:
libopagent_version_info.patch
|
Hi! Due to our last discussion I have modified the implementation. Just review again and give comments. Kind regards, Daniel John Levon wrote: > On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 05:20:50PM +0100, Daniel Hansel wrote: > >> +__asm__(".symver op_major_version_1_0,op_major_version@OPAGENT_1.0"); >> +__asm__(".symver op_minor_version_1_0,op_minor_version@OPAGENT_1.0"); >> + >> +int op_major_version_1_0(void) >> +{ >> + return 1; >> +} >> + >> +int op_minor_version_1_0(void) >> +{ >> + return 0; >> +} > > I don't think this is necessary, you can just leave out the asm and do > op_major/minor_version() > > We only need this symver stuff when we have two symbols with the same > name but different implementations. We haven't even released 1.0 yet, so > that can't happen. > > Otherwise looks fine > > regards > john |
From: John L. <le...@mo...> - 2008-02-01 18:25:33
|
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 03:33:09PM +0100, Daniel Hansel wrote: > Due to our last discussion I have modified the implementation. Looks good thanks john |