On Aug 30, 2024, at 22:05, Mark Millard <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 30, 2024, at 21:26, Mark Millard <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 30, 2024, at 20:33, Mark Millard <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> [Subject was retitled.]
>>>
>>> On Aug 30, 2024, at 16:24, Mark Millard <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What my test-of-building got was: No <arm_bf16.h> include file found and
>>>> no OFlags::TMPFILE found (OFlags:: was found, TMPFILE in OFlags:: was not):
>>>>
>>>> In file included from
>>>> /wrkdirs/usr/ports/www/firefox/work/firefox-129.0.2/mfbt/lz4/xxhash.c:43:
>>>> In file included from
>>>> /wrkdirs/usr/ports/www/firefox/work/firefox-129.0.2/mfbt/lz4/xxhash.h:3434:
>>>> /usr/local/llvm17/lib/clang/17/include/arm_neon.h:37:10: fatal error:
>>>> 'arm_bf16.h' file not found
>>>> 37 | #include <arm_bf16.h>
>>>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>> . . .
>>>>
>>>> error[E0599]: no associated item named `TMPFILE` found for struct
>>>> `backend::fs::types::OFlags` in the current scope
>>>> -->
>>>> /wrkdirs/usr/ports/www/firefox/work/firefox-129.0.2/third_party/rust/rustix/src/backend/libc/fs/syscalls.rs:144:32
>>>> |
>>>> 144 | if oflags.contains(OFlags::TMPFILE) &&
>>>> crate::backend::if_glibc_is_less_than_2_25() {
>>>> | ^^^^^^^ associated item not found in
>>>> `OFlags`
>>>> |
>>>> :::
>>>> /wrkdirs/usr/ports/www/firefox/work/firefox-129.0.2/third_party/rust/rustix/src/backend/libc/fs/types.rs:203:1
>>>> |
>>>> 203 | / bitflags! {
>>>> 204 | | /// `O_*` constants for use with [`openat`].
>>>> 205 | | ///
>>>> 206 | | /// [`openat`]: crate::fs::openat
>>>> ... |
>>>> 333 | | }
>>>> 334 | | }
>>>> | |_- associated item `TMPFILE` not found for this struct
>>>> |
>>>> . . .
>>>> = note: this error originates in the macro `$crate::__impl_bitflags` which
>>>> comes from the expansion of the macro `bitflags` (in Nightly builds, run
>>>> with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
>>>>
>>>> . . .
>>>>
>>>> error[E0599]: no associated item named `TMPFILE` found for struct
>>>> `backend::fs::types::OFlags` in the current scope
>>>> -->
>>>> /wrkdirs/usr/ports/www/firefox/work/firefox-129.0.2/third_party/rust/rustix/src/backend/libc/fs/syscalls.rs:207:32
>>>> |
>>>> 207 | if oflags.contains(OFlags::TMPFILE) &&
>>>> crate::backend::if_glibc_is_less_than_2_25() {
>>>> | ^^^^^^^ associated item not found in
>>>> `OFlags`
>>>> |
>>>> :::
>>>> /wrkdirs/usr/ports/www/firefox/work/firefox-129.0.2/third_party/rust/rustix/src/backend/libc/fs/types.rs:203:1
>>>> |
>>>> 203 | / bitflags! {
>>>> 204 | | /// `O_*` constants for use with [`openat`].
>>>> 205 | | ///
>>>> 206 | | /// [`openat`]: crate::fs::openat
>>>> ... |
>>>> 333 | | }
>>>> 334 | | }
>>>> | |_- associated item `TMPFILE` not found for this struct
>>>> |
>>>> . . .
>>>> = note: this error originates in the macro `$crate::__impl_bitflags` which
>>>> comes from the expansion of the macro `bitflags` (in Nightly builds, run
>>>> with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
>>>>
>>>> . . .
>>>> = note: this error originates in the macro `$crate::__impl_bitflags` which
>>>> comes from the expansion of the macro `bitflags` (in Nightly builds, run
>>>> with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
>>>>
>>>> For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0599`.
>>>> error: could not compile `rustix` (lib) due to 2 previous errors
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For reference:
>>>>
>>>> # uname -apKU
>>>> FreeBSD aarch64-main-pbase 15.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 15.0-CURRENT #8
>>>> main-n271819-5cbb98c8259c-dirty: Fri Aug 23 22:06:47 PDT 2024
>>>> root@aarch64-main-pbase:/usr/obj/BUILDs/main-CA76-nodbg-clang/usr/main-src/arm64.aarch64/sys/GENERIC-NODBG-CA76
>>>> arm64 aarch64 1500023 1500023
>>>>
>>>> # ~/fbsd-based-on-what-commit.sh -C /usr/ports/
>>>> 87a38a839ab8 (HEAD -> main, freebsd/main, freebsd/HEAD) net-im/dissent:
>>>> update package description
>>>> Author: Jan Beich <jbe...@freebsd.org>
>>>> Commit: Jan Beich <jbe...@freebsd.org>
>>>> CommitDate: 2024-08-24 18:30:01 +0000
>>>> branch: main
>>>> merge-base: 87a38a839ab83c2def100a0975a7afb29e873cf2
>>>> merge-base: CommitDate: 2024-08-24 18:30:01 +0000
>>>> n674987 (--first-parent --count for merge-base)
>>>>
>>>> But firefox was updated to use: nss>=3.103:security/nss to match what was
>>>> available.
>>>
>>>
>>> Using devel/llvm18 instead got the same.
>>>
>>> Looking inside even a /usr/local/llvm19/lib/clang/19/include/
>>> also shows the arm_bf16.h file is not present. By contrast,
>>> for an aarch64 context:
>>>
>>> # file /usr/local/llvm19/lib/clang/19/include/arm_bf16.h
>>> /usr/local/llvm19/lib/clang/19/include/arm_bf16.h: C source, ASCII text
>>>
>>> Looking quickly at more llvm* shows:
>>>
>>> # grep -r arm_bf16 /usr/ports/devel/llvm1*/ | more
>>> /usr/ports/devel/llvm11/pkg-plist:%%CLANG%%llvm%%LLVM_SUFFIX%%/lib/clang/%%LLVM_RELEASE%%/include/arm_bf16.h
>>> /usr/ports/devel/llvm12/pkg-plist:%%CLANG%%llvm%%LLVM_SUFFIX%%/lib/clang/%%LLVM_RELEASE%%/include/arm_bf16.h
>>> /usr/ports/devel/llvm13/pkg-plist:%%CLANG%%llvm%%LLVM_SUFFIX%%/lib/clang/%%LLVM_RELEASE%%/include/arm_bf16.h
>>> /usr/ports/devel/llvm14/Makefile:_BE_INCS_ARM= arm_bf16.h
>>> arm_cde.h arm_fp16.h arm_mve.h arm_neon.h arm_sve.h
>>> /usr/ports/devel/llvm15/Makefile:_BE_INCS_ARM= arm_bf16.h
>>> arm_cde.h arm_fp16.h arm_mve.h arm_neon.h arm_sve.h
>>> /usr/ports/devel/llvm16/files/patch-backport-llvm-db49231: `arm_sve.h`
>>> and `arm_bf16.h`, and all those generated files will contain a
>>> /usr/ports/devel/llvm16/files/patch-backport-llvm-db49231: `arm_bf16.h`
>>> immediately before their own typedef:
>>> /usr/ports/devel/llvm16/files/patch-backport-llvm-db49231: #include
>>> <arm_bf16.h>
>>> /usr/ports/devel/llvm16/files/patch-backport-llvm-db49231: Since
>>> `arm_bf16.h` is very likely supposed to be the one true place where
>>> /usr/ports/devel/llvm16/files/patch-backport-llvm-db49231: OS <<
>>> "#include <arm_bf16.h>\n";
>>> /usr/ports/devel/llvm16/files/patch-backport-llvm-db49231: OS <<
>>> "#include <arm_bf16.h>\n";
>>> /usr/ports/devel/llvm16/Makefile:_BE_INCS_ARM= arm_bf16.h
>>> arm_cde.h arm_fp16.h arm_mve.h arm_neon.h arm_sve.h
>>> /usr/ports/devel/llvm17/Makefile:_BE_INCS_AArch64= arm_bf16.h
>>> arm_sme_draft_spec_subject_to_change.h
>>> /usr/ports/devel/llvm18/Makefile:_BE_INCS_AArch64= arm_bf16.h
>>> /usr/ports/devel/llvm19/Makefile:_BE_INCS_AArch64= arm_bf16.h
>>>
>>> llvm1[456] had _BE_INCS_ARM containing arm_bf16.h (and more).
>>> llvm1[789] do not.
>>>
>>> I wonder if:
>>>
>>> https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/commit/devel/llvm17/Makefile?id=778e212f234a825c5e19612df4be2e8f838cb024
>>>
>>> doing:
>>>
>>> -_BE_INCS_ARM= arm_bf16.h arm_cde.h arm_fp16.h arm_mve.h arm_neon.h
>>> arm_sve.h
>>> +_BE_INCS_ARM= arm_cde.h arm_fp16.h arm_mve.h arm_neon.h arm_sve.h
>>>
>>> was correct. I'll note that in an armv7 context:
>>>
>>> # find /usr/local/*/gcc14/ -name arm_bf16.h -print
>>> /usr/local/lib/gcc14/gcc/armv7-portbld-freebsd15.0/14.2.0/include/arm_bf16.h
>>>
>>> suggesting that gcc14 considers the file as not aarch64 specific but
>>> as armv7 compatibile.
>>
>> I got that wrong! arm vs. aarch64 have different source files with the
>> same name (under different paths):
>>
>> gcc/gcc/config/arm/arm_bf16.h has guard test: #ifndef _GCC_ARM_BF16_H
>> gcc/gcc/config/aarch64/arm_bf16.h has guard test: #ifndef _AARCH64_BF16_H_
>>
>> (More content is different.)
>
> As for llvm*:
>
> clang/lib/Basic/Targets/ARM.cpp has:
>
> if (HasBFloat16) {
> Builder.defineMacro("__ARM_FEATURE_BF16", "1");
> Builder.defineMacro("__ARM_FEATURE_BF16_VECTOR_ARITHMETIC", "1");
> Builder.defineMacro("__ARM_BF16_FORMAT_ALTERNATIVE", "1");
> }
>
> clang/lib/Basic/Targets/AArch64.cpp has:
>
> if (HasBFloat16) {
> Builder.defineMacro("__ARM_FEATURE_BF16", "1");
> Builder.defineMacro("__ARM_FEATURE_BF16_VECTOR_ARITHMETIC", "1");
> Builder.defineMacro("__ARM_BF16_FORMAT_ALTERNATIVE", "1");
> }
>
> which suggests bf16 support has 32-bit support (even if it is armv8
> 32-bit). Looking for AArch32 state in:
>
> DDI0487K_a_a-profile_architecture_reference_manual.pdf
>
> it says (via the AArch32 column of a table):
>
> BF16 Supported if FEAT_AA32BF16 is implemented.
>
> Looks to me like the removal of arm_bf16.h for llvm target ARM
> was incorrect.
>
>>> So I've put arm_bf16.h back into the llvm18 test context and sometime
>>> after 3 hrs I should be able to report on a firefox build attempt with
>>> the change (I hope).
>>
>
So, it no longer failed for amd_bf16.h being missing.
But it still has the lack-of OFlags::TMPFILE problem that stops the build.
===
Mark Millard
marklmi at yahoo.com
