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

Sedat Dilek sedat.dilek at gmail.com
Mon Jan 21 12:39:51 UTC 2013


On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Tinti <viniciustinti at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Sedat,
>
> I have reimplemented the checkpoint feature this weekend and I would like to
> test it with your settings too.
>
> Can you send me it? Also would be great to see other people trying to use
> it. If you have time, please checkout my branch and read
> Documentation/settings_file.txt.
>

We should stop top-posting, eh?

With my (llvmlinux-patched) LLVM/CLANG toolchain I hit many
non-toolchain issues this weekend when trying to build LIBDRM/MESA in
an /opt/xorg installation.

Following all daily upstream changes in LLVMLinux is NOT possible and
NOT wanted by me.

I think people are interested in "stable" work against stable releases.

I was planning to push my adapted/refreshed LLVMLinux patches against
v3.2-stable of llvm/clang/compiler-rt.
Are you interested in them?

I had a look into your settings_file.txt file but did not get wiser, sorry.

I am still trying to track a Linux-Next issue with JBD2 (or LOOP).
Let's see if linux-fsdevel people can help.

Hope this helps you.

- Sedat -

> Best regards,
> Tinti
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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}


More information about the LLVMLinux mailing list