| Message ID | 20181103122758.10578-4-fontaine.fabrice@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/4] llvm: fix build of host-llvm | expand |
Hello, On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 13:27:58 +0100, Fabrice Fontaine wrote: > Do not return an error if architecture is "Linux BPF" (in-kernel > bytecode machine) > > Fixes: > - http://autobuild.buildroot.org/results/c18fb7f1ac81496db9c3a4e91ea028a26ca600b0 > > Signed-off-by: Fabrice Fontaine <fontaine.fabrice@gmail.com> > --- > support/scripts/check-bin-arch | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/support/scripts/check-bin-arch b/support/scripts/check-bin-arch > index 7f97696735..a0de7a6ac4 100755 > --- a/support/scripts/check-bin-arch > +++ b/support/scripts/check-bin-arch > @@ -74,6 +74,11 @@ while read f; do > continue > fi > > + # If architecture is Linux BPF (in-kernel bytecode machine), continue > + if test "${arch}" = "Linux BPF" ; then > + continue > + fi In the build failure http://autobuild.buildroot.org/results/c18fb7f1ac81496db9c3a4e91ea028a26ca600b0/build-end.log that you point, the architecture is reported as "None", not as "Linux BPF". Am I misunderstanding something here ? As a first step, could we explicitly disable building BPF protocols, before we merge the necessary LLVM/V4L logic to build these properly ? Thanks, Thomas
Dear Thomas, Le sam. 3 nov. 2018 à 14:20, Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com> a écrit : > > Hello, > > On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 13:27:58 +0100, Fabrice Fontaine wrote: > > Do not return an error if architecture is "Linux BPF" (in-kernel > > bytecode machine) > > > > Fixes: > > - http://autobuild.buildroot.org/results/c18fb7f1ac81496db9c3a4e91ea028a26ca600b0 > > > > Signed-off-by: Fabrice Fontaine <fontaine.fabrice@gmail.com> > > --- > > support/scripts/check-bin-arch | 5 +++++ > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/support/scripts/check-bin-arch b/support/scripts/check-bin-arch > > index 7f97696735..a0de7a6ac4 100755 > > --- a/support/scripts/check-bin-arch > > +++ b/support/scripts/check-bin-arch > > @@ -74,6 +74,11 @@ while read f; do > > continue > > fi > > > > + # If architecture is Linux BPF (in-kernel bytecode machine), continue > > + if test "${arch}" = "Linux BPF" ; then > > + continue > > + fi > > In the build failure > http://autobuild.buildroot.org/results/c18fb7f1ac81496db9c3a4e91ea028a26ca600b0/build-end.log > that you point, the architecture is reported as "None", not as "Linux > BPF". Am I misunderstanding something here ? I wasn't able to reproduce this "None" architecture issue. But I think it was "None" because the llvm/clang found on Peter's machine was very old (3.8): clang -idirafter /usr/local/include -idirafter /usr/lib/llvm-3.8/bin/../lib/clang/3.8.1/include -idirafter /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu -idirafter /usr/include -I../../../include -target bpf -O2 -c grundig.c With my patch's serie, I'm building a host-clang in version 7.0 that supports BPF and in this case the architecture is correctly set to "Linux BPF". I tested with a clang in version 6.0 installed from Ubuntu 18.04 repositories on my host machine and it was also "Linux BPF". > > As a first step, could we explicitly disable building BPF protocols, > before we merge the necessary LLVM/V4L logic to build these properly ? Ok, I will do that. > > Thanks, > > Thomas > -- > Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin > Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering > https://bootlin.com Best Regards, Fabrice
Hello, On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 14:53:48 +0100, Fabrice Fontaine wrote: > I wasn't able to reproduce this "None" architecture issue. > But I think it was "None" because the llvm/clang found on Peter's > machine was very old (3.8): > clang -idirafter /usr/local/include -idirafter > /usr/lib/llvm-3.8/bin/../lib/clang/3.8.1/include -idirafter > /usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu -idirafter /usr/include > -I../../../include -target bpf -O2 -c grundig.c > > With my patch's serie, I'm building a host-clang in version 7.0 that > supports BPF and in this case the architecture is correctly set to > "Linux BPF". > I tested with a clang in version 6.0 installed from Ubuntu 18.04 > repositories on my host machine and it was also "Linux BPF". OK, but then you're not fixing the problem on Peter's machine: with your patch series, if he doesn't enable BR2_PACKAGE_ELFUTILS, libv4l configure script will still detect the system-wide clang/llvm installed, which will produce those bogus "None" binaries. Which is why there is a need to explicitly disable building the BPF protocol support, except if we know that Buildroot is providing all the necessary dependencies. Thanks! Thomas
diff --git a/support/scripts/check-bin-arch b/support/scripts/check-bin-arch index 7f97696735..a0de7a6ac4 100755 --- a/support/scripts/check-bin-arch +++ b/support/scripts/check-bin-arch @@ -74,6 +74,11 @@ while read f; do continue fi + # If architecture is Linux BPF (in-kernel bytecode machine), continue + if test "${arch}" = "Linux BPF" ; then + continue + fi + # Architecture is correct if test "${arch}" = "${arch_name}" ; then continue
Do not return an error if architecture is "Linux BPF" (in-kernel bytecode machine) Fixes: - http://autobuild.buildroot.org/results/c18fb7f1ac81496db9c3a4e91ea028a26ca600b0 Signed-off-by: Fabrice Fontaine <fontaine.fabrice@gmail.com> --- support/scripts/check-bin-arch | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)