On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 02:40:04PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 10:53:52AM +0800, Wang Nan wrote: > > Ping... > > Sorry for long delay. > > > > > On 2014/12/29 16:14, Wang Nan wrote: > > > On 2014/12/29 15:56, Namhyung Kim wrote: > > >> Hi Wang, > > >> > > >> (Adding Arnaldo and Jiri to CC) > > >> > > >> On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 09:26:11AM +0800, Wang Nan wrote: > > >>> When build with 'make ARCH=x86' and dwarf unwind is on, there is a > > >>> compiling error: > > >>> > > >>> CC /home/wn/perf/arch/x86/util/unwind-libdw.o > > >>> CC /home/wn/perf/arch/x86/tests/regs_load.o > > >>> arch/x86/tests/regs_load.S: Assembler messages: > > >>> arch/x86/tests/regs_load.S:65: Error: operand type mismatch for `push' > > >>> arch/x86/tests/regs_load.S:72: Error: operand type mismatch for `pop' > > >>> make[1]: *** [/home/wn/perf/arch/x86/tests/regs_load.o] Error 1 > > >>> make[1]: INTERNAL: Exiting with 25 jobserver tokens available; should > > >>> be 24! > > >>> make: *** [all] Error 2 > > >>> ... > > >>> > > >>> Which is caused by incorrectly undefine macro HAVE_ARCH_X86_64_SUPPORT. > > >>> 'config/Makefile.arch' tests __x86_64__ only when 'ARCH=x86_64'. > > >>> However, > > >>> with 'ARCH=x86', the underlying compile may also be x86_64, which causes > > >>> mismatching. > > >> > > >> Hmm.. how did you compile this? I guess ARCH=x86 requires -m32 flag > > >> to the gcc, did you pass it (like via EXTRA_CFLAGS=-m32)? > > >> > > >> I'm confused by 'underlying compile may also be x86_64' part.. > > >> > > > > > > I hit this problem when building perf with Yocto > > > (https://www.yoctoproject.org/), which > > > is a famous building system for embeded system. > > > > > > When building kernel, we can simply use 'make ARCH=x86' and select > > > 'CONFIG_64BIT' > > > in menuconfig to get a x86_64 kernel. As a result, there building > > > framework > > > like Yocto doesn't ever consider 'x86_64' as a valid ARCH option. See: > > > https://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky/tree/meta/classes/kernel-arch.bbclass > > > Therefore, when building with such framework, it uses a x86_64 compiler > > > and ARCH=x86. > > Hmm.. okay. I think that it should also be checked with the new build > system for perf, Jiri? ;)
yea.. however the config/Makefile still stays as it was but whatever change you'll make for Makefile.perf I need to transform.. but this one does not seem too massive ;-) > > Anyway, I cleaned up the code like below.. As __LP64__ is defined for > x86_64 as well, we can consolidate the __x86_64__ check to the > __LP64__ check and get rid of the IS_X86_64 IMHO. > > Thanks, > Namhyung > > > diff --git a/tools/perf/Makefile.perf b/tools/perf/Makefile.perf > index 67a03a825b3c..eb3e2f3e14b4 100644 > --- a/tools/perf/Makefile.perf > +++ b/tools/perf/Makefile.perf > @@ -462,10 +462,12 @@ BUILTIN_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)builtin-bench.o > # Benchmark modules > BUILTIN_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)bench/sched-messaging.o > BUILTIN_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)bench/sched-pipe.o > +ifeq ($(ARCH),x86) > ifeq ($(RAW_ARCH),x86_64) > BUILTIN_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)bench/mem-memcpy-x86-64-asm.o > BUILTIN_OBJS += $(OUTPUT)bench/mem-memset-x86-64-asm.o > endif > +endif isn't the check for x86 superfluous here? the x86_64 check is stronger otherwise it looks ok to me.. Wang Nan, could you please check if it fixes the issue for you? thanks, jirka -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
