[lttng-dev] Using lttng-ust 2.13.6 from Yocto Kirkstone and getting weird segfault saying strlen_asimd.S can't be found.
Brian Hutchinson
b.hutchman at gmail.com
Tue Jul 30 11:54:23 EDT 2024
Hi Kienan,
I noticed looking thru the 38k line LTTNG_UST_DEBUG session this line:
" 810: /usr/lib/liblttng-ust.so.1: error: symbol lookup
error: undefined symbol: ltt_probe_register (fatal)"
... and it jogged my memory that I did see some abi conflict messages
in lttng-ust "make check" that I don't know if they are "good" or
"bad" but could be related???
Anyway, attaching a tar of lttng-ust and lttng-tools "make check" for
your enjoyment.
Regards,
Brian
On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 8:40 AM Brian Hutchinson <b.hutchman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 3:03 PM Kienan Stewart <kstewart at efficios.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Brian,
> >
> > On 7/25/24 3:54 PM, Brian Hutchinson wrote:
> > > Hi Kienan,
> > >
> > > I'll answer your questions below, but I've got questions on what I saw
> > > building and installing lttng-tools (2.13.13) and lttng-ust (2.13.8).
> > >
> > > Based on the struggles I've had trying to get lttng to work with my
> > > app over various Yocto versions (Dunfell & Kirkstone) and lttng
> > > version, I think the problems I'm facing are mostly around C++ and
> > > weak and hidden symbols in Yocto toolchain.
> > >
> > > When I started my app with the options you mentioned previously a
> > > while back, Id see things like:
> > >
> > > # LTTNG_UST_DEBUG=1 LTTNG_UST_REGISTER_TIMEOUT=-1 /opt/tc/TrafficController
> > > liblttng_ust_tracepoint[4012/4012]: Your compiler treats weak symbols
> > > with hidden visibility for integer objects as SAME address between
> > > compile units part of the same module. (in check_weak_hidden() at
> > > tracepoint.c:1012)
> > > liblttng_ust_tracepoint[4012/4012]: Your compiler treats weak symbols
> > > with hidden visibility for pointer objects as SAME address between
> > > compile units part of the same module. (in check_weak_hidden() at
> > > tracepoint.c:1016)
> > > liblttng_ust_tracepoint[4012/4012]: Your compiler treats weak symbols
> > > with hidden visibility for 24-byte structure objects as SAME address
> > > between compile units part of the same module. (in check_weak_hidden()
> > > at tracepoint.c:1020)
> > >
> >
> > These messages are extra information for debugging and not indicative of
> > a problem in of itself. C.f.
> > https://github.com/lttng/lttng-ust/blob/24f7193c9b918bf714a40e9fc908eeb4978ada1c/src/lib/lttng-ust-tracepoint/tracepoint.c#L1010
> >
> > There is a unit test related to this:
> > https://github.com/lttng/lttng-ust/blob/24f7193c9b918bf714a40e9fc908eeb4978ada1c/tests/unit/gcc-weak-hidden/main.c#L76
> >
> >
> > > I further researched this whole 'weak symbol' and 'hidden visibility'
> > > topic in the lttng-dev archives and it smells a lot like what I've
> > > been seeing. You should be able to mix both tracef and tracepoint
> > > calls in souce code ... but I could not. I could get a tracef call to
> > > work but if I put a tracepoint call in the same code then nothing
> > > would work. This was with Dunfell 3.1.7 and earlier versions of
> > > lttng.
> > >
> > > At one point I could get a tracepoint call to work but I'd have to let
> > > our cmake build system build and link the tpp.c file and then turn
> > > around and use gcc to recompile it and copy it to where all the
> > > objects were to create the huge .a library the app was built against.
> > > That's when I first learned there are issues with C++. I think g++ is
> > > used to build even .c files that aren't c++.
> > >
> > > Then if I tried to put a tracepoint in another sub project, none of
> > > the tracepoints would work and I'd get empty traces. This is a
> > > symptom of the 'weak symbols with hidden visibility' issue ... and I
> > > finally found others that were having same issue in the archives. I
> > > don't fully understand the issues here, although I do understand some
> > > of what's going on ... I just don't know what to do about it.
> > >
> >
> > You said initially said that you're using `lttng_ust_tracepoint` exactly
> > as the hello world from the documentation; however, you have just
> > described several attempts at doing different things. Which case are we
> > trying to understand here?
>
> lttng_ust_tracepoint. I only mentioned prior tests for context to
> similar struggles from a year or more ago.
>
>
> >
> > > At this point I was being encouraged to keep upgrading to newer
> > > versions of lttng. Our app never changed, gcc & lttng etc., kept
> > > changing. Now with newer versions nothing runs, all I get is an
> > > immediate segfault. Again, I'm building just like I did before a year
> > > or so ago with older versions of Yocto and lttng. I say all of that
> > > to give perspective and history of what I've seen and experienced.
> > > Now this TLS thing has entered the picture too and so far I've only
> > > changed lttng, I don't know if I should be applying patches to my gcc
> > > for that issue. Like I said, I'm currently using Yocto Kirkstone
> > > 4.0.18 and 6.1.38 kernel.
> > >
> > > Now I'll move into the area of things I've seen building/installing
> > > lttng-tools and lttng-ust natively on the target environment I've
> > > setup where I can run 'make check' etc. These are in the category of
> > > "hey, is this ok, should I be worried about this":
> > >
> > > While building lttng-tools I see things like:
> > >
> > > *** Warning: Linking the executable userspace-probe-elf-binary against
> > > the loadable module
> > > *** libfoo.so is not portable!
> > >
> >
> > The library is for a test program. My understanding is that the library
> > is compiled that way to force a stripped shared object to be produced in
> > order to validate that symbol lookups in libraries with no symtab
> > function as expected by using the dynsym table.
> >
> > C.f.
> > https://github.com/lttng/lttng-tools/commit/ef3dfe5d31c88fb548189a6441aaf8b2afc0bd4b
> >
> > > In file included from ../../../src/common/macros.h:15,
> > > from ../../../include/lttng/health-internal.h:19,
> > > from lttng-ctl-health.c:19:
> > > In function 'lttng_strnlen',
> > > inlined from 'lttng_strncpy' at ../../../src/common/macros.h:128:6,
> > > inlined from 'set_health_socket_path' at lttng-ctl-health.c:146:9,
> > > inlined from 'lttng_health_query' at lttng-ctl-health.c:264:8:
> > > ../../../src/common/compat/string.h:19:16: warning: 'strnlen'
> > > specified bound 4096 may exceed source size 37 [-Wstringop-overread]
> > > 19 | return strnlen(str, max);
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > lttng-ctl-health.c: At top level:
> > > cc1: note: unrecognized command-line option
> > > '-Wno-incomplete-setjmp-declaration' may have been intended to silence
> > > earlier diagnostics
> >
> > This warning is addressed in
> > https://github.com/lttng/lttng-tools/commit/b25a59916106e5055be516f61f183a48f459b0b3
> >
> > > ** Warning: Linking the shared library libbar.la against the loadable module
> > > *** libzzz.so is not portable!
> > >
> > > *** Warning: Linking the shared library libfoo.la against the loadable module
> > > *** libbar.so is not portable!
> > >
> > > While installing lttng-tools I see things like this:
> > >
> > > make[4]: Entering directory '/opt/lttng/lttng-tools-2.13.13/src/lib/lttng-ctl'
> > > CC lttng-ctl.lo
> > > CC snapshot.lo
> > > CC lttng-ctl-health.lo
> > > In file included from ../../../src/common/macros.h:15,
> > > from ../../../include/lttng/health-internal.h:19,
> > > from lttng-ctl-health.c:19:
> > > In function 'lttng_strnlen',
> > > inlined from 'lttng_strncpy' at ../../../src/common/macros.h:128:6,
> > > inlined from 'set_health_socket_path' at lttng-ctl-health.c:146:9,
> > > inlined from 'lttng_health_query' at lttng-ctl-health.c:264:8:
> > > ../../../src/common/compat/string.h:19:16: warning: 'strnlen'
> > > specified bound 4096 may exceed source size 37 [-Wstringop-overread]
> > > 19 | return strnlen(str, max);
> > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > lttng-ctl-health.c: At top level:
> > > cc1: note: unrecognized command-line option
> > > '-Wno-incomplete-setjmp-declaration' may have been intended to silence
> > > earlier diagnostics
> > >
> > > Making install in trigger-condition-event-matches
> > > make[2]: Entering directory
> > > '/opt/lttng/lttng-tools-2.13.13/doc/examples/trigger-condition-event-matches'
> > > CC instrumented-app.o
> > > CC tracepoint-trigger-example.o
> > > AR libtracepoint-trigger-example.a
> > > ar: `u' modifier ignored since `D' is the default (see `U')
> > >
> > > While building lttng-ust I see things like:
> > >
> > > Making all in utils
> > > make[2]: Entering directory
> > > '/home/iadmin/lttng-ust/lttng-ust-2.13.8/tests/utils'
> > > CC tap.o
> > > AR libtap.a
> > > ar: `u' modifier ignored since `D' is the default (see `U')
> > >
> >
> > While libtool now uses `cr` by default, automake still defines the
> > default to `cru` which is what ends up getting used in the example.
> > Since many distros have changed the configuration of ar such that 'D' is
> > the default rather than the previous behaviour 'U', 'u' is redundant.
> >
> > The behaviour in automake has been changed in automake 1.16.90+.
> >
> > C.f.
> > https://github.com/autotools-mirror/libtool/commit/418129bc63afc312701e84cb8afa5ca413df1ab5
> >
> > C.f.
> > http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/automake.git/commit/?id=8cdbdda5aec652c356fe6dbba96810202176ae75
> >
> > > *** Warning: Linking the shared library libzero.la against the
> > > loadable module
> > > *** libfakeust0.so is not portable!
> > > CCLD app_noust_indirect_abi0
> > >
> > > *** Warning: Linking the executable app_noust_indirect_abi0 against
> > > the loadable module
> > > *** libzero.so is not portable!
> > > CC app_noust_indirect_abi0_abi1-app_noust.o
> > > CC libone.lo
> > > CCLD libone.la
> > > CCLD app_noust_indirect_abi0_abi1
> > >
> > > *** Warning: Linking the executable app_noust_indirect_abi0_abi1
> > > against the loadable module
> > > *** libzero.so is not portable!
> > >
> > > *** Warning: Linking the executable app_noust_indirect_abi0_abi1
> > > against the loadable module
> > > *** libone.so is not portable!
> > > CC app_noust_indirect_abi1-app_noust.o
> > > CCLD app_noust_indirect_abi1
> > >
> > > *** Warning: Linking the executable app_noust_indirect_abi0_abi1
> > > against the loadable module
> > > *** libone.so is not portable!
> > > CC app_noust_indirect_abi1-app_noust.o
> > > CCLD app_noust_indirect_abi1
> > >
> > > *** Warning: Linking the executable app_noust_indirect_abi1 against
> > > the loadable module
> > > *** libone.so is not portable!
> > > CC app_ust.o
> > > CC tp.o
> > > CCLD app_ust
> > > CC app_ust_dlopen.o
> > > CCLD app_ust_dlopen
> > > CC app_ust_indirect_abi0-app_ust.o
> > > CC app_ust_indirect_abi0-tp.o
> > > CCLD app_ust_indirect_abi0
> > >
> > > *** Warning: Linking the executable app_ust_indirect_abi0 against the
> > > loadable module
> > > *** libzero.so is not portable!
> > > CC app_ust_indirect_abi0_abi1-app_ust.o
> > > CC app_ust_indirect_abi0_abi1-tp.o
> > > CCLD app_ust_indirect_abi0_abi1
> > >
> > > *** Warning: Linking the executable app_ust_indirect_abi0_abi1 against
> > > the loadable module
> > > *** libzero.so is not portable!
> > >
> > > I don't know if these are ok or if I should be worried about any of that.
> > >
> >
> > These are all for different tests.
> >
> > > ... now on to your questions below.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 12:04 PM Kienan Stewart <kstewart at efficios.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi Brian,
> > >>
> > >> On 7/22/24 6:00 PM, Brian Hutchinson wrote:
> > >>> Hi Kienan,
> > >>>
> > >>> Took a while to gather your grocery list but I think I have most of it
> > >>> below ;)
> > >>
> > >> thanks for all the extra info. Replies inline below, but I'll cut a lot
> > >> of the long output for readability.
> > >>
> > >> tl;dr the environment continues to be weird, but my present suspicion is
> > >> that something in either compilation, the linking of your app (eg. with
> > >> ld when producing the executable), or some post linking stripping might
> > >> be causing issues.
> > >
> > > I'm not aware of any stripping that's going on. In fact everything is
> > > being built with debug symbols at the moment and I even turned off
> > > optimization ... even used the debug friendly -O flag to see if that
> > > made a difference.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> I will stop digging into further hypotheticals on my side as there is no
> > >> reproducer for both the environment and the application. If you ever end
> > >> up with a minimal reproducer that you can share, I'd be more than happy
> > >> to examine it.
> > >
> > > I'm planning on trying to make a small reproducer I can share but not there yet.
> > >
> >
> > Great! I appreciate that you're taking the time to do so.
> >
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> I may have not been clear. Most of the application components are
> > >>> statically linked but I think there are some that are built as shared
> > >>> objects (.so's) so that's what I was referring to. I know that
> > >>> lttng-ust is dynamically linked ... I think the lttng-ust docs say this
> > >>> is only option but also makes reference to the fact static linking was
> > >>> once possible (in some versions of the documentation) but not supported
> > >>> anymore (I probably have the docs memorized by now ha, ha ... I've
> > >>> looked at many, many versions of them).
> > >>>
> > >>> Just for full disclosure my ldd looks like:
> > >>>
> > >>> linux-vdso.so.1 (0x0000ffffab196000)
> > >>> libfcgi.so.0 => /usr/lib/libfcgi.so.0 (0x0000ffffa57f0000)
> > >>> liblttng-ust.so.1 => /usr/lib/liblttng-ust.so.1
> > >>> (0x0000ffffa5750000)
> > >>> libxml2.so.2 => /usr/lib/libxml2.so.2 (0x0000ffffa55d0000)
> > >>> librt.so.1 => /lib/librt.so.1 (0x0000ffffa55b0000)
> > >>> libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0x0000ffffa5510000)
> > >>> libstdc++.so.6 => /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6 (0x0000ffffa52f0000)
> > >>> libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x0000ffffa52c0000)
> > >>> libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x0000ffffa5110000)
> > >>> /lib/ld-linux-aarch64.so.1 (0x0000ffffab15d000)
> > >>> liblttng-ust-common.so.1 =>
> > >>> /usr/local/lib/liblttng-ust-common.so.1 (0x0000ffffa50e0000)
> > >>> liblttng-ust-tracepoint.so.1 =>
> > >>> /usr/local/lib/liblttng-ust-tracepoint.so.1 (0x0000ffffa50a0000)
> > >>> libpthread.so.0 => /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0x0000ffffa5080000)
> > >>> libz.so.1 => /lib/libz.so.1 (0x0000ffffa5050000)
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> I find it very suspicious that `liblttng-ust.so.1` is in `/usr/lib`,
> > >> while the other lttng-ust libraries are being loaded from `/usr/local/lib`.
> > >
> > > So Yocto puts all of the lttng libs into /usr/lib. When I sent the
> > > previous info I was using lttng-tools and modules built by Yocto/OE
> > > and I setup a native build environment on the target so I could run
> > > 'make check' etc., and that's why there were things in /usr/local/lib
> > > because that's where you guys want stuff to be. So I actually left
> > > the lttng-ust installables in /usr/local/build but also copied them to
> > > /usr/lib to overwrite old Yocto versions there.
> > >
> >
> > It's not so much that it's "where we want it to be". The documentation
> > uses `/usr/local/lib` because `/usr/local` is meant for software
> > installed by the sysadmin administrator, as is the case when building a
> > custom version. `/usr/lib` should be used by packages shipped with the
> > system.
> >
> > C.f. https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch04s09.html
> >
> > You're free to do as you see fit, but when you start mixing and matching
> > libraries and some are put in /usr/lib by your system packages and some
> > you move there manually I find it more difficult to follow what is going on.
> >
> > >>
> > >> This information also matches the statedump and the LD_DEBUG info from
> > >> later on.
> > >>
> > >> Could you verify some of the following information:
> > >>
> > >> 1. In your build root for lttng-ust, enumerate all the liblttng*so
> > >> files. For each shared object, run `file $libname` and record the value
> > >> of the BuildID hash.R5jow
> > >
> > > Sorry, I'm not following you here. The only buildID hash I can think
> > > of is with 'eu-unstrip -n' but that's on core files, not individual
> > > libs. And looking at the options I have for 'file' on my target, I
> > > don't see anything that looks like what you are asking.
> >
> > Perhaps I wasn't clear, the command to run is really just `file`. As a
> > fuller example:
> >
> > ```
> > $ file ./src/lib/lttng-ust-fork/.libs/liblttng-ust-fork.so.1.0.0
> > ./src/lib/lttng-ust-fork/.libs/liblttng-ust-fork.so.1.0.0: ELF 64-bit
> > LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked,
> > BuildID[sha1]=b2b4a0fc449cf317e32c23e0bb57ea1ad702b702, with debug_info,
> > not stripped
>
> Ok, feel stupid now. When I ran the command before, I used short name
> and didn't do it on the long name and just got back:
>
> # file /usr/lib/liblttng-ust.so
> /usr/lib/liblttng-ust.so: symbolic link to liblttng-ust.so.1.0.0
>
> ... and immediately looked at man page to try to figure out what
> switch showed BuildID etc., ha, ha.
>
> When I do it on long name here is what I see:
>
> # file /usr/lib/liblttng-ust-common.so.1.0.0
> /usr/lib/liblttng-ust-common.so.1.0.0: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object,
> ARM aarch64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked,
> BuildID[sha1]=a50c9a77163b6b91e1f84e57d167c7b77ae707a3, with
> debug_info, not stripped
> # file /usr/lib/liblttng-ust-ctl.so.5.0.0
> /usr/lib/liblttng-ust-ctl.so.5.0.0: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, ARM
> aarch64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked,
> BuildID[sha1]=547cccac08721ed1c9a7f3c7ebf1de84ddba7fba, with
> debug_info, not stripped
> # file /usr/lib/liblttng-ust-cyg-profile-fast.so.1.0.0
> /usr/lib/liblttng-ust-cyg-profile-fast.so.1.0.0: ELF 64-bit LSB shared
> object, ARM aarch64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked,
> BuildID[sha1]=ad5f71ef5e83ab9a972488976c47db265d3360b9, with
> debug_info, not stripped
> # file /usr/lib/liblttng-ust-cyg-profile.so.1.0.0
> /usr/lib/liblttng-ust-cyg-profile.so.1.0.0: ELF 64-bit LSB shared
> object, ARM aarch64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked,
> BuildID[sha1]=c2c246c1973bd3241aa4f7229fcbcb27ebe08e82, with
> debug_info, not stripped
> # file /usr/lib/liblttng-ust-dl.so.1.0.0
> /usr/lib/liblttng-ust-dl.so.1.0.0: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, ARM
> aarch64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked,
> BuildID[sha1]=6082ee88c9394319bc3adff16b0b3ea9f8d549ec, with
> debug_info, not stripped
> # file /usr/lib/liblttng-ust-fd.so.1.0.0
> /usr/lib/liblttng-ust-fd.so.1.0.0: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, ARM
> aarch64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked,
> BuildID[sha1]=a2813245af91abe98615771dfd7d5f19b033a410, with
> debug_info, not stripped
> # file /usr/lib/liblttng-ust-fork.so.1.0.0
> /usr/lib/liblttng-ust-fork.so.1.0.0: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, ARM
> aarch64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked,
> BuildID[sha1]=86afa53808502873830c02290f477d4ff8013afb, with
> debug_info, not stripped
> # file /usr/lib/liblttng-ust-libc-wrapper.so.1.0.0
> /usr/lib/liblttng-ust-libc-wrapper.so.1.0.0: ELF 64-bit LSB shared
> object, ARM aarch64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked,
> BuildID[sha1]=52f391875a378b5f2c46747a58020b86cb7c9a83, with
> debug_info, not stripped
> # file /usr/lib/liblttng-ust-pthread-wrapper.so.1.0.0
> /usr/lib/liblttng-ust-pthread-wrapper.so.1.0.0: ELF 64-bit LSB shared
> object, ARM aarch64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked,
> BuildID[sha1]=7127223a7e8ed67c6697b95ae1f8ac107df7e47e, with
> debug_info, not stripped
> # file /usr/lib/liblttng-ust-tracepoint.so.1.0.0
> /usr/lib/liblttng-ust-tracepoint.so.1.0.0: ELF 64-bit LSB shared
> object, ARM aarch64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked,
> BuildID[sha1]=5971b4d84ec1efe61c6d47c38e92de20569f0f49, with
> debug_info, not stripped
> # file /usr/lib/liblttng-ust.so.1.0.0
> /usr/lib/liblttng-ust.so.1.0.0: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, ARM
> aarch64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked,
> BuildID[sha1]=ce7097ae9bbf42a02dccd386fdfbd37e3224858b, with
> debug_info, not stripped
>
>
> cutting some stuff out cause it's getting long again.
>
> >
> > Sounds like `make check` for lttng-tools passed then?
>
> At first no. But I think this is because I built the new lttng-tools
> in my on target native environment and ran make check and forgot to do
> make install first, so it was using the older version of lttng-tools.
>
> So then I ran make install of lttng-tools and even did a make clean
> and rebuild of lttng-ust and re-installed it and ran make check on
> both (and things looked a lot better) ... that's where those warnings
> etc., I asked you about came from.
>
> >
> > My understanding at this point is the unit tests are passing for
> > LTTng-UST on your system, as are the unit and regression tests for
> > LTTng-tools. The example programs shipped with LTTng-UST work on your
> > system, as does the example from the documentation. The statedump
> > tracepoints loaded from LTTng-UST are also working fine, as evinced by
> > the program logs and the LTTng trace you shared.
> >
> > Despite my confusion about how exactly you're using the `hello world`
> > tracepoint in your application (as you've now described several
> > variations), the direction this points to for me are details related to
> > how you're using LTTng-UST and/or how are your building and linking your
> > application. To be clear, I don't mean to say that there is or is not an
> > issue in LTTng-UST, but to point at where to examine next in detail
> > including analysis of the produced object files.
>
> I compared the doc/examples/hello-static-lib to what I picked out of
> the LTTng documentation on the web site "Quick start" section and the
> traceprovider headder file is including stddef.h and mine isn't and
> the doc/examples/hello-static-lib/hello.c code is doing a sighandler
> and mine isn't doing any of that either. I think I've probably posted
> it before but will do it again. Here is what I'm calling my "hello".
> It's from the lttng documentation but I cut it down even further just
> to make sure I didn't fat finger something. Like I said before, the
> full hello example from the documentation works. But when I call
> pretty much the same code from my app it seg faults.
>
> I don't know if the differences I see between my "hello" and the
> "hello-static-lib" matter.
>
> hello-tp.h:
>
> #undef LTTNG_UST_TRACEPOINT_PROVIDER
> #define LTTNG_UST_TRACEPOINT_PROVIDER hello_world
>
> #undef LTTNG_UST_TRACEPOINT_INCLUDE
> #define LTTNG_UST_TRACEPOINT_INCLUDE "./hello-tp.h"
>
> #if !defined(_HELLO_TP_H) || defined(LTTNG_UST_TRACEPOINT_HEADER_MULTI_READ)
> #define _HELLO_TP_H
>
> #include <lttng/tracepoint.h>
>
> LTTNG_UST_TRACEPOINT_EVENT(
> hello_world,
> my_first_tracepoint,
> LTTNG_UST_TP_ARGS(
> int, my_integer_arg
> ),
> LTTNG_UST_TP_FIELDS(
> lttng_ust_field_integer(int, my_integer_field, my_integer_arg)
> )
> )
>
> #endif /* _HELLO_TP_H */
>
> #include <lttng/tracepoint-event.h>
>
> hello-tp.c:
>
> #define LTTNG_UST_TRACEPOINT_CREATE_PROBES
>
> #include "hello-tp.h"
>
> From my_app:
>
> #define LTTNG_UST_TRACEPOINT_DEFINE
> //#define LTTNG_UST_TRACEPOINT_PROBE_DYNAMIC_LINKAGE
> #include "hello-tp.h"
>
> .
> .
> .
> lttng_ust_tracepoint(hello_world, my_first_tracepoint, 23, "hi there!");
>
> In the above case the tpp is static but I've tried to make it a shared
> object too (thus the commented out DYNAMIC_LINKAGE above) but get the
> same result.
>
> Again, I think the issue is probably g++ and weak/hidden symbol
> related and or TLS but that's based on the totality of what I've
> experienced over the past year or so and seeing the
> experiences/problems of others in the lttng-dev archives.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brian
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: make-check.tar.xz
Type: application/x-xz
Size: 70348 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.lttng.org/pipermail/lttng-dev/attachments/20240730/24997fb9/attachment-0001.xz>
More information about the lttng-dev
mailing list