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

[Sedat Dilek]

Hi Tinti,

I have adapted the LLVM/CLANG patches from LLVMLinux project against
v3.2-stable.

Toolchain is fine...
Just (mis)used build of mesa-8.x as a test-case [1].

Will look tomorrow into the Linux x86_64 patches.

- Sedat -

[1] http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2013-January/033614.html

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Tinti <viniciustinti at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Sedat,
>
> About stable versions please check my branch. I have just uploaded the
> documentation about it (Documentation/settings_file.txt) and an example in
> rpi target. I think it fits for your purposes.
> I have not applied on master because I would like to have some reviews and
> feedbacks. Is anything else that you would like to add?
>
> Best regards,
> Tinti
>>
>> 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.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Behan Webster <behanw at converseincode.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVMLinux mailing list
>> LLVMLinux at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/llvmlinux
>
>
>
>
> --
> Vinicius Tinti
> mail => {viniciustinti at gmail.com, tinti at comp.eng.br}
> skype => {viniciustinti}
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVMLinux mailing list
> LLVMLinux at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/llvmlinux