On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 2:34 PM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On December 13, 2022 7:09:07 PM GMT-03:00, Ian Rogers <irogers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >Thanks Athira and Arnaldo. It is a little strange to me to be using > >the shell to do a version number test. The intent was to be doing > >these in the code: > >#if LIBRTRACEEVENT_VERSION >= MAKE_LIBTRACEEVENT_VERSION(1, 5, 0) > >vs > >... > >LIBTRACEEVENT_VERSION_WITH_TEP_FIELD_IS_RELATIVE := $(shell expr 1 \* > >255 \* 255 + 5 \* 255 + 0) # 1.5.0 > >ifeq ($(shell test $(LIBTRACEEVENT_VERSION_CPP) -gt > >$(LIBTRACEEVENT_VERSION_WITH_TEP_FIELD_IS_RELATIVE); echo $$?),0) > >CFLAGS += -DHAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT_TEP_FIELD_IS_RELATIVE > >endif > >... > >#ifdef HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT_TEP_FIELD_IS_RELATIVE > >I'm a little selfish as I'm maintaining a bazel build and a single > >version number to maintain is easier than lots of HAVE_... tests. I'm > >happy to follow Arnaldo's lead. I think the test should also be > >greater-equal rather than greater-than: > >https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/libs/libtrace/libtraceevent.git/tree/include/traceevent/event-parse.h?h=libtraceevent-v1.5#n128 > > I'll fix that, and in a case like this please consider to send a patch with your preference, I'd happily > graft it. > > - Arnaldo I can fix it. I can fold it in with: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-perf-users/20210923001024.550263-4-irogers@xxxxxxxxxx/ which I mentioned in this thread. Thanks, Ian > >
