[llvmlinux] clang fails on linux-next since commit 8bf705d13039
sedat.dilek at gmail.com
Mon Jul 30 09:40:49 UTC 2018
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland at arm.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:09:54AM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland at arm.com> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 08:12:00PM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>> >> I was able to build a Linux v4.18-rc6 with tip.git#locking/core  on
>> >> top of it here on Debian/buster AMD64.
>> >> The patch of interest is ...
>> >> df79ed2c0643 locking/atomics: Simplify cmpxchg() instrumentation
>> >> ...and some more locking/atomics[/x86] may be interesting.
>> >> I had also to apply an asm-goto fix to reduce the number of warnings
>> >> when building with clang-7 (version
>> >> 7.0.0-svn337957-1~exp1+0~20180725200907.1908~1.gbpcccb1b (trunk)).
>> >> The kernel does ***not boot*** on bare metal.
>> > Ok. Does the prior commit boot?
>> I cannot say as I was not able to compile with clang since the commit
>> 8bf705d13039 mentioned here in the subject.
>> Kees pointed me to issue #7 "__builtin_constant_p() does not work in
>> deep inline functions" which is the cause for not booting.
>> The issue is known as #7.
>> My qemu-log.txt is attached for details if you want to look at.
>>  https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/7
>> >> More details see  and  for the clang-side.
>> > It's not clear to me how these relate to the patch in question. AFAICT,
>> > those are build-time errors, but you say that the kernel doesn't boot
>> > (which implies it built).
>> > Are [4,5] relevant to this commit, or to the (unrelated) issue ?
>> > My patch removes the switch, so this doesn't look like the same issue.
>> ClangBuiltLinux issue #3 "clang validates extended assembly
>> constraints of dead code" is the problem on the clang-side.
>> Matthias and Jan commented on the thread  if you want to read.
>> You fixed the issue on the kernel-side, so that I could build a Linux
>> v4.18-rc6 with clang-7 (trunk).
>> This is a huge progress - really.
>>  https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/kasan-dev/oMgCP37n1vw
>> Is this a bit clearer, now?
> Yes; I had misunderstood your mail as reporting a regression resulting
> from my patch, rather than an improvement.
> IIUC, commit df79ed2c0643 ("locking/atomics: Simplify cmpxchg()
> instrumentation") happens to make the kernel compile with clang, when it
> would not previously (since commit 8bf705d13039).
> Given that you seem to understand the remaining issue, I take it that
> there is nothing that I need to do here.
What are your plans to have...
4d2b25f630c7 locking/atomics: Instrument cmpxchg_double*()
f9881cc43b11 locking/atomics: Instrument xchg()
df79ed2c0643 locking/atomics: Simplify cmpxchg() instrumentation
00d5551cc4ee locking/atomics/x86: Reduce arch_cmpxchg64*() instrumentation
...for example in Linux 4.18 or 4.17.y?
- Sedat -
More information about the LLVMLinux