On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 10:05:06PM -0700, Mark Millard 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.
The commit to the port simply refects changes upstream which made
arm_br16.h aarch64-only. It was done in a massive commit (a70cf56d20b956)
so may well have been wrong and no one notices because they always build
all the backends.
-- Brooks
