[llvmlinux] Quick build against stable versions of toolchain (llvm and clang) and Linux-kernel?

Behan Webster behanw at converseincode.com
Thu Jan 17 16:53:53 UTC 2013


On 13-01-17 09:11 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> first of all I wish all people from the LLVMLinux project a happy new year!
Same to you! :)

> After a case of death in my family I dropped all my OSS activities for a while.
I'm very sorry to hear that.

> The last weeks I started to build again mainline and Linux-Next kernels.
> ...and playing with Linux Test Project (LTP).
> I would like also to test a llvmlinux-compiled Linux-kernel with LTP!
We are already running LTP with a clang compiled kernel, but currently 
only for the vexpress (ARM based) kernel. It's just a matter of somebody 
porting the code. I too would like to see an automated x86 LTP test run.

> Today, I remembered the $JOBS variable
"make help" has details about a lot of things, including the $JOBS 
variable. The default value of JOBS likely will be close to optimum. On 
my machine (at least) if I ingrease JOBS much higher than the calculated 
default, it actually slows down the compile.

> What is {the | your | a good} base for the Linux-kernel (speaking of x86_64)?
> v3.7.y (latest stable version)?
The LLVMLinux project works from the HEAD of LLVM and the Linux project. 
Since the goal is to upstream patches to both projects, we really have 
to work from HEAD.

As far as saving checkpoints that work with a particular version of a 
kernel, somebody merely needs to create a settings file which details 
the versions of all SW involved. The settings file is described in 
Documentation/settings_file.txt

Tinti is using this to create a checkpoint for the rpi community so that 
people can play with a stable kernel there for instance. You are welcome 
to do the same for x86_64.

> $ grep "Kernel Configuration" -nr ./
> ./targets/x86_64/config_x86_64:3:# Linux/x86_64 3.7.0 Kernel Configuration
> ./targets/x86_64/config_x86_64_default:3:# Linux/x86_64 3.7.0-rc5
> Kernel Configuration
> ./targets/i586/config_i586:3:# Linux/x86_64 3.7.0 Kernel Configuration
That's merely the version of the kernel that was being used when that 
config file was last updated. It doesn't indicate a stable version of 
the kernel source.

> Is the listed kernel-config a good base?
It is the one we are currently testing with. This file is intended to 
create a bootable kernel on an average x86_64 computer.

> Same question to llvm and clang.
> v3.2 (latest stable version)?
Again, we don't use stable versions of the toolchain. We use HEAD. Until 
our patches are in we have to keep developing and testing with the 
latest/greatest code.

> Personally, I wanted to test against ***stable*** versions of all 3 components.
Great! That would be very helpful.

> Some patches are not listed in the appropriate series files (so-to-say UNUSED).
The existence of a patch file doesn't mean it's actually being used. The 
series file lists which patches are currently in use.

Patches which aren't in a series file usually are left in place until 
we're sure we don't need them anymore (or at all).

> I am still against all this uncommon naming of patches (speaking
> mostly of the ones for the Linux-kernel).
In this case many of the patch names for x86_64 have been created from 
the commit comments by "git format-patch".

I would encourage you to work within our build framework if you can. If 
we all work on the same code base, with the same test framework, we can 
much more easily share work and accelerate our efforts.

Thanks!

Behan

-- 
Behan Webster
behanw at converseincode.com



More information about the LLVMLinux mailing list