Hi!
On 19/09/2018 15:03, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> That is indeed a cross build environment I'm not regularly testing, I'm
> trying these cross builds:
Probably my assumption was wrong about cross compiler.
HOST tool fails (objtool) and it's being build by separate i686->i686 compiler.
> 9 android-ndk:r12b-arm : Ok arm-linux-androideabi-gcc (GCC)
> 4.9.x 20150123 (prerelease)
> 10 android-ndk:r15c-arm : Ok arm-linux-androideabi-gcc (GCC)
> 4.9.x 20150123 (prerelease)
> 19 debian:experimental-x-arm64 : Ok aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc (Debian
> 8.2.0-4) 8.2.0
> 20 debian:experimental-x-mips : Ok mips-linux-gnu-gcc (Debian
> 8.1.0-12) 8.1.0
> 21 debian:experimental-x-mips64 : Ok mips64-linux-gnuabi64-gcc (Debian
> 8.1.0-12) 8.1.0
> 22 debian:experimental-x-mipsel : Ok mipsel-linux-gnu-gcc (Debian
> 8.1.0-12) 8.1.0
> 28 fedora:24-x-ARC-uClibc : Ok arc-linux-gcc (ARCompact ISA Linux
> uClibc toolchain 2017.09-rc2) 7.1.1 20170710
> 46 ubuntu:14.04.4-x-linaro-arm64 : Ok aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc (Linaro GCC
> 5.5-2017.10) 5.5.0
> 48 ubuntu:16.04-x-arm : Ok arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc
> (Ubuntu/Linaro 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.9) 5.4.0 20160609
> 49 ubuntu:16.04-x-arm64 : Ok aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc
> (Ubuntu/Linaro 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.9) 5.4.0 20160609
> 50 ubuntu:16.04-x-powerpc : Ok powerpc-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu
> 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.9) 5.4.0 20160609
> 51 ubuntu:16.04-x-powerpc64 : Ok powerpc64-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu/IBM
> 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.9) 5.4.0 20160609
> 52 ubuntu:16.04-x-powerpc64el : Ok powerpc64le-linux-gnu-gcc
> (Ubuntu/IBM 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.9) 5.4.0 20160609
> 53 ubuntu:16.04-x-s390 : Ok s390x-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu
> 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.9) 5.4.0 20160609
> 57 ubuntu:18.04-x-arm : Ok arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc
> (Ubuntu/Linaro 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0
> 58 ubuntu:18.04-x-arm64 : Ok aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc
> (Ubuntu/Linaro 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0
> 59 ubuntu:18.04-x-m68k : Ok m68k-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu
> 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0
> 60 ubuntu:18.04-x-powerpc : Ok powerpc-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu
> 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0
> 61 ubuntu:18.04-x-powerpc64 : Ok powerpc64-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu
> 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0
> 62 ubuntu:18.04-x-powerpc64el : Ok powerpc64le-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu
> 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0
> 63 ubuntu:18.04-x-riscv64 : Ok riscv64-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu
> 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0
> 64 ubuntu:18.04-x-s390 : Ok s390x-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu
> 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0
> 65 ubuntu:18.04-x-sh4 : Ok sh4-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu
> 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0
> 66 ubuntu:18.04-x-sparc64 : Ok sparc64-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu
> 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0
I think the big list is mostly irrelevant. I was wondering why only x86 fails
from my list of
different targets (ARM, ARM64, MIPS64, x86, x86_64, PPC), but it turns out that
objtool is only
built for HAVE_STACK_VALIDATION targets (means, x86 only?).
I've tried to build it for MIPS64 with make tools/objtool and it fails in the
same way.
One special thing about my compiler is really old glibc it's being built against
(hello RHEL :) maybe this causes reverse order of includes.
Nevertheless two conflicting defines of BITS_PER_LONG will only work with one
particular
order of includes but not opposite.
> I'll try and get one for building a x86_64 tools/perf,
> tools/lib/{api,bpf,traceevent} to see if I manage to reproduce the
> problem you're reporting.
--
Best regards,
Alexander Sverdlin.
