Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > On 2018-11-28 6:31 p.m., Nadav Amit wrote: >>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2018-11-28 5:38 p.m., Nadav Amit wrote: So what’s your take? Would you think this patch is still needed? Should it only be enabled automatically for distcc and not for distcc-pump? >>> >>> Not sure. The patch will probably slow things down a lot (seeing >>> assembly is always done locally and there are twice as many compile >>> steps) and will create some confusion once it's possible to disable it >>> for the new versions. Maybe hold off and see if anyone else complains? >>> >>> I don't really know how you'd detect whether pump is in use or not and >>> I'm uncertain as to whether any of the auto detection can actually be >>> made to be reliable. >> >> A silly `$(CC) —version | grep pump ` test. > > Actually I'm not sure that's going to work in all cases. If CC="distcc > gcc", then "$(CC) --version" just looks like "gcc --version"... Err.. You’re right. I just tried distcc --version.
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > On 2018-11-28 6:31 p.m., Nadav Amit wrote: >>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2018-11-28 5:38 p.m., Nadav Amit wrote: So what’s your take? Would you think this patch is still needed? Should it only be enabled automatically for distcc and not for distcc-pump? >>> >>> Not sure. The patch will probably slow things down a lot (seeing >>> assembly is always done locally and there are twice as many compile >>> steps) and will create some confusion once it's possible to disable it >>> for the new versions. Maybe hold off and see if anyone else complains? >>> >>> I don't really know how you'd detect whether pump is in use or not and >>> I'm uncertain as to whether any of the auto detection can actually be >>> made to be reliable. >> >> A silly `$(CC) —version | grep pump ` test. > > Actually I'm not sure that's going to work in all cases. If CC="distcc > gcc", then "$(CC) --version" just looks like "gcc --version"... Err.. You’re right. I just tried distcc --version.
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
On 2018-11-28 6:31 p.m., Nadav Amit wrote: >> On Nov 28, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2018-11-28 5:38 p.m., Nadav Amit wrote: >>> So what’s your take? Would you think this patch is still needed? Should it >>> only be enabled automatically for distcc and not for distcc-pump? >> >> Not sure. The patch will probably slow things down a lot (seeing >> assembly is always done locally and there are twice as many compile >> steps) and will create some confusion once it's possible to disable it >> for the new versions. Maybe hold off and see if anyone else complains? >> >> I don't really know how you'd detect whether pump is in use or not and >> I'm uncertain as to whether any of the auto detection can actually be >> made to be reliable. > > A silly `$(CC) —version | grep pump ` test. Actually I'm not sure that's going to work in all cases. If CC="distcc gcc", then "$(CC) --version" just looks like "gcc --version"... Logan
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
On 2018-11-28 6:31 p.m., Nadav Amit wrote: >> On Nov 28, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2018-11-28 5:38 p.m., Nadav Amit wrote: >>> So what’s your take? Would you think this patch is still needed? Should it >>> only be enabled automatically for distcc and not for distcc-pump? >> >> Not sure. The patch will probably slow things down a lot (seeing >> assembly is always done locally and there are twice as many compile >> steps) and will create some confusion once it's possible to disable it >> for the new versions. Maybe hold off and see if anyone else complains? >> >> I don't really know how you'd detect whether pump is in use or not and >> I'm uncertain as to whether any of the auto detection can actually be >> made to be reliable. > > A silly `$(CC) —version | grep pump ` test. Actually I'm not sure that's going to work in all cases. If CC="distcc gcc", then "$(CC) --version" just looks like "gcc --version"... Logan
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
> On Nov 28, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > On 2018-11-28 5:38 p.m., Nadav Amit wrote: >> So what’s your take? Would you think this patch is still needed? Should it >> only be enabled automatically for distcc and not for distcc-pump? > > Not sure. The patch will probably slow things down a lot (seeing > assembly is always done locally and there are twice as many compile > steps) and will create some confusion once it's possible to disable it > for the new versions. Maybe hold off and see if anyone else complains? > > I don't really know how you'd detect whether pump is in use or not and > I'm uncertain as to whether any of the auto detection can actually be > made to be reliable. A silly `$(CC) —version | grep pump ` test. Anyhow, it is up to Masahiro.
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
> On Nov 28, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > On 2018-11-28 5:38 p.m., Nadav Amit wrote: >> So what’s your take? Would you think this patch is still needed? Should it >> only be enabled automatically for distcc and not for distcc-pump? > > Not sure. The patch will probably slow things down a lot (seeing > assembly is always done locally and there are twice as many compile > steps) and will create some confusion once it's possible to disable it > for the new versions. Maybe hold off and see if anyone else complains? > > I don't really know how you'd detect whether pump is in use or not and > I'm uncertain as to whether any of the auto detection can actually be > made to be reliable. A silly `$(CC) —version | grep pump ` test. Anyhow, it is up to Masahiro.
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
On 2018-11-28 5:38 p.m., Nadav Amit wrote: > So what’s your take? Would you think this patch is still needed? Should it > only be enabled automatically for distcc and not for distcc-pump? Not sure. The patch will probably slow things down a lot (seeing assembly is always done locally and there are twice as many compile steps) and will create some confusion once it's possible to disable it for the new versions. Maybe hold off and see if anyone else complains? I don't really know how you'd detect whether pump is in use or not and I'm uncertain as to whether any of the auto detection can actually be made to be reliable. Logan
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
On 2018-11-28 5:38 p.m., Nadav Amit wrote: > So what’s your take? Would you think this patch is still needed? Should it > only be enabled automatically for distcc and not for distcc-pump? Not sure. The patch will probably slow things down a lot (seeing assembly is always done locally and there are twice as many compile steps) and will create some confusion once it's possible to disable it for the new versions. Maybe hold off and see if anyone else complains? I don't really know how you'd detect whether pump is in use or not and I'm uncertain as to whether any of the auto detection can actually be made to be reliable. Logan
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
> On Nov 28, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > On 2018-11-14 6:57 p.m., Nadav Amit wrote: >> Eventually, if you get a fix into icecc, we will need to change the >> Makefile, consider the version number and act accordingly. > > I got a fix pulled into icecc[1] and it works quite well. It ought to be > included in the next version of icecc. And distcc (with pump at least) > has a patch too. In my experience, icecc does a much better job > distributing the kernel build though. > > Logan > > [1] > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ficecc%2Ficecream%2Fpull%2F430data=02%7C01%7Cnamit%40vmware.com%7C044d795be30143ae26ef08d65586953b%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C636790433884222635sdata=4h72yLjvOF29kcAC5CM7CB9ukH3HoALNUfgKA62E4Gs%3Dreserved=0 Thanks for taking care of it. This change is certainly simpler and cleaner than the one I came with. So what’s your take? Would you think this patch is still needed? Should it only be enabled automatically for distcc and not for distcc-pump?
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
> On Nov 28, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > On 2018-11-14 6:57 p.m., Nadav Amit wrote: >> Eventually, if you get a fix into icecc, we will need to change the >> Makefile, consider the version number and act accordingly. > > I got a fix pulled into icecc[1] and it works quite well. It ought to be > included in the next version of icecc. And distcc (with pump at least) > has a patch too. In my experience, icecc does a much better job > distributing the kernel build though. > > Logan > > [1] > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ficecc%2Ficecream%2Fpull%2F430data=02%7C01%7Cnamit%40vmware.com%7C044d795be30143ae26ef08d65586953b%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C636790433884222635sdata=4h72yLjvOF29kcAC5CM7CB9ukH3HoALNUfgKA62E4Gs%3Dreserved=0 Thanks for taking care of it. This change is certainly simpler and cleaner than the one I came with. So what’s your take? Would you think this patch is still needed? Should it only be enabled automatically for distcc and not for distcc-pump?
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
On 2018-11-14 6:57 p.m., Nadav Amit wrote: > Eventually, if you get a fix into icecc, we will need to change the > Makefile, consider the version number and act accordingly. I got a fix pulled into icecc[1] and it works quite well. It ought to be included in the next version of icecc. And distcc (with pump at least) has a patch too. In my experience, icecc does a much better job distributing the kernel build though. Logan [1] https://github.com/icecc/icecream/pull/430
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
On 2018-11-14 6:57 p.m., Nadav Amit wrote: > Eventually, if you get a fix into icecc, we will need to change the > Makefile, consider the version number and act accordingly. I got a fix pulled into icecc[1] and it works quite well. It ought to be included in the next version of icecc. And distcc (with pump at least) has a patch too. In my experience, icecc does a much better job distributing the kernel build though. Logan [1] https://github.com/icecc/icecream/pull/430
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
On 14/11/18 06:57 PM, Nadav Amit wrote: > As long as the argument was *required* to get distcc to work at all, you > could expect people would figure out an argument is needed. In this case, I > suspect nobody will ever know about this argument (except you). I agree with this completely. > Eventually, if you get a fix into icecc, we will need to change the > Makefile, consider the version number and act accordingly. Yeah, that's probably a sensible way forward. > Anyhow, I’ll add an argument as you asked, and let Ingo (& others) be the An argument to force it to a regular compile would at least help with experimenting with this stuff. Logan
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
On 14/11/18 06:57 PM, Nadav Amit wrote: > As long as the argument was *required* to get distcc to work at all, you > could expect people would figure out an argument is needed. In this case, I > suspect nobody will ever know about this argument (except you). I agree with this completely. > Eventually, if you get a fix into icecc, we will need to change the > Makefile, consider the version number and act accordingly. Yeah, that's probably a sensible way forward. > Anyhow, I’ll add an argument as you asked, and let Ingo (& others) be the An argument to force it to a regular compile would at least help with experimenting with this stuff. Logan
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
From: Logan Gunthorpe Sent: November 15, 2018 at 1:19:45 AM GMT > To: Nadav Amit , Ingo Molnar > Cc: Ingo Molnar , Masahiro Yamada > , Michal Marek , > Thomas Gleixner , Borislav Petkov , H. > Peter Anvin , X86 ML , Linux Kbuild mailing > list , LKML > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros > > > > > On 14/11/18 10:46 AM, Nadav Amit wrote: >> Actually, we can just figure out whether distcc or icecc are used in the >> Makefile according to the “version”, similarly to the way clang is detected. >> This would neither require new Makefile arguments or Kconfig options. >> >> What do you say about the following? > > That may be a good idea, but I was kind of hoping to be able to add > support for this to at least a future version of icecc (though I'm not > committing to that...). So it would be nice to have a way to force it > one way or the other with an environment variable. As long as the argument was *required* to get distcc to work at all, you could expect people would figure out an argument is needed. In this case, I suspect nobody will ever know about this argument (except you). Eventually, if you get a fix into icecc, we will need to change the Makefile, consider the version number and act accordingly. Anyhow, I’ll add an argument as you asked, and let Ingo (& others) be the judge(s).
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
From: Logan Gunthorpe Sent: November 15, 2018 at 1:19:45 AM GMT > To: Nadav Amit , Ingo Molnar > Cc: Ingo Molnar , Masahiro Yamada > , Michal Marek , > Thomas Gleixner , Borislav Petkov , H. > Peter Anvin , X86 ML , Linux Kbuild mailing > list , LKML > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros > > > > > On 14/11/18 10:46 AM, Nadav Amit wrote: >> Actually, we can just figure out whether distcc or icecc are used in the >> Makefile according to the “version”, similarly to the way clang is detected. >> This would neither require new Makefile arguments or Kconfig options. >> >> What do you say about the following? > > That may be a good idea, but I was kind of hoping to be able to add > support for this to at least a future version of icecc (though I'm not > committing to that...). So it would be nice to have a way to force it > one way or the other with an environment variable. As long as the argument was *required* to get distcc to work at all, you could expect people would figure out an argument is needed. In this case, I suspect nobody will ever know about this argument (except you). Eventually, if you get a fix into icecc, we will need to change the Makefile, consider the version number and act accordingly. Anyhow, I’ll add an argument as you asked, and let Ingo (& others) be the judge(s).
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
On 14/11/18 10:46 AM, Nadav Amit wrote: > > Actually, we can just figure out whether distcc or icecc are used in the > Makefile according to the “version”, similarly to the way clang is detected. > This would neither require new Makefile arguments or Kconfig options. > > What do you say about the following? That may be a good idea, but I was kind of hoping to be able to add support for this to at least a future version of icecc (though I'm not committing to that...). So it would be nice to have a way to force it one way or the other with an environment variable. Thanks, Logan
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
On 14/11/18 10:46 AM, Nadav Amit wrote: > > Actually, we can just figure out whether distcc or icecc are used in the > Makefile according to the “version”, similarly to the way clang is detected. > This would neither require new Makefile arguments or Kconfig options. > > What do you say about the following? That may be a good idea, but I was kind of hoping to be able to add support for this to at least a future version of icecc (though I'm not committing to that...). So it would be nice to have a way to force it one way or the other with an environment variable. Thanks, Logan
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
From: Logan Gunthorpe Sent: November 14, 2018 at 7:29:38 AM GMT > To: Nadav Amit , Ingo Molnar > Cc: Ingo Molnar , Masahiro Yamada > , Michal Marek , > Thomas Gleixner , Borislav Petkov , H. > Peter Anvin , X86 ML , Linux Kbuild mailing > list , LKML > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros > > > > > On 13/11/18 11:34 AM, Nadav Amit wrote: >> Just one question before I send v2, since I have second thoughts. Does it >> make sense to require the “DISTCC” make parameter, or should it be set in >> the Kconfig? It can be detected automatically, the same way gcc/clang are >> detected or manually through a config option. > > I very much prefer the make variable as it can be set in the environment > without having to change the Kconfig. Actually, we can just figure out whether distcc or icecc are used in the Makefile according to the “version”, similarly to the way clang is detected. This would neither require new Makefile arguments or Kconfig options. What do you say about the following? -- >8 -- Subject: [PATCH] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros Introducing the use of asm macros in c-code broke distcc, since it only sends the preprocessed source file. The solution is to break the compilation into two separate phases of compilation and assembly, and between the two concatenate the assembly macros and the compiled (yet not assembled) source file. Since this is less efficient, this compilation mode is only used when distcc or icecc are used. Note that the assembly stage should also be distributed, if distcc is configured using "CFLAGS=-DENABLE_REMOTE_ASSEMBLE". Reported-by: Logan Gunthorpe Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit --- Makefile | 4 +++- arch/x86/Makefile | 7 +-- scripts/Makefile.build | 30 -- 3 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile index 9fce8b91c15f..c07349fc38c7 100644 --- a/Makefile +++ b/Makefile @@ -743,7 +743,9 @@ KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option, -gsplit-dwarf, -g) else KBUILD_CFLAGS += -g endif -KBUILD_AFLAGS += -Wa,-gdwarf-2 +AFLAGS_DEBUG_INFO = -Wa,-gdwarf-2 +export AFLAGS_DEBUG_INFO +KBUILD_AFLAGS += $(AFLAGS_DEBUG_INFO) endif ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_DWARF4 KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option, -gdwarf-4,) diff --git a/arch/x86/Makefile b/arch/x86/Makefile index f5d7f4134524..b5953cbcc9c8 100644 --- a/arch/x86/Makefile +++ b/arch/x86/Makefile @@ -235,10 +235,13 @@ archscripts: scripts_basic archheaders: $(Q)$(MAKE) $(build)=arch/x86/entry/syscalls all +ASM_MACRO_FILE = arch/x86/kernel/macros.s +export ASM_MACRO_FILE + archmacros: - $(Q)$(MAKE) $(build)=arch/x86/kernel arch/x86/kernel/macros.s + $(Q)$(MAKE) $(build)=arch/x86/kernel $(ASM_MACRO_FILE) -ASM_MACRO_FLAGS = -Wa,arch/x86/kernel/macros.s +ASM_MACRO_FLAGS = -Wa,$(ASM_MACRO_FILE) export ASM_MACRO_FLAGS KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(ASM_MACRO_FLAGS) diff --git a/scripts/Makefile.build b/scripts/Makefile.build index 6a6be9f440cf..bac761c07bf8 100644 --- a/scripts/Makefile.build +++ b/scripts/Makefile.build @@ -155,8 +155,34 @@ $(obj)/%.ll: $(src)/%.c FORCE quiet_cmd_cc_o_c = CC $(quiet_modtag) $@ +# If distcc is used, and when assembly macro files are needed, the compilation +# stage and the assembly stage needs to be separated. Providing the "DISTCC=y" +# option enables separate compilation and assembly. + +cmd_cc_o_c_direct = $(CC) $(c_flags) -c -o $(1) $< + +ifneq ($(shell $(CC) --version 2>&1 | head -n 1 | grep -E 'distcc|icecc'),) +a_flags_no_debug = $(filter-out $(AFLAGS_DEBUG_INFO), $(a_flags)) +c_flags_no_macros = $(filter-out $(ASM_MACRO_FLAGS), $(c_flags)) + +cmd_cc_o_c_two_steps = \ + $(CC) $(c_flags_no_macros) $(DISABLE_LTO) -fverbose-asm -S \ + -o $(@D)/.$(@F:.o=.s) $<; \ + cat $(ASM_MACRO_FILE) $(@D)/.$(@F:.o=.s) > \ + $(@D)/.tmp_$(@F:.o=.s); \ + $(CC) $(a_flags_no_debug) -c -o $(1) $(@D)/.tmp_$(@F:.o=.s);\ + rm -f $(@D)/.$(@F:.o=.s) $(@D)/.tmp_$(@F:.o=.s) \ + +cmd_cc_o_c_helper =\ + $(if $(findstring $(ASM_MACRO_FLAGS),$(c_flags)), \ + $(call cmd_cc_o_c_two_steps, $(1)), \ + $(call cmd_cc_o_c_direct, $(1))) +else +cmd_cc_o_c_helper = $(call cmd_cc_o_c_direct, $(1)) +endif + ifndef CONFIG_MODVERSIONS -cmd_cc_o_c = $(CC) $(c_flags) -c -o $@ $< +cmd_cc_o_c = $(call cmd_cc_o_c_helper,$@) else # When module versioning is enabled the following steps are executed: @@ -171,7 +197,7 @@ else # replace the unresolved symbols __crc_exported_symbol with # the actual value of the checksum generated by
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
From: Logan Gunthorpe Sent: November 14, 2018 at 7:29:38 AM GMT > To: Nadav Amit , Ingo Molnar > Cc: Ingo Molnar , Masahiro Yamada > , Michal Marek , > Thomas Gleixner , Borislav Petkov , H. > Peter Anvin , X86 ML , Linux Kbuild mailing > list , LKML > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros > > > > > On 13/11/18 11:34 AM, Nadav Amit wrote: >> Just one question before I send v2, since I have second thoughts. Does it >> make sense to require the “DISTCC” make parameter, or should it be set in >> the Kconfig? It can be detected automatically, the same way gcc/clang are >> detected or manually through a config option. > > I very much prefer the make variable as it can be set in the environment > without having to change the Kconfig. Actually, we can just figure out whether distcc or icecc are used in the Makefile according to the “version”, similarly to the way clang is detected. This would neither require new Makefile arguments or Kconfig options. What do you say about the following? -- >8 -- Subject: [PATCH] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros Introducing the use of asm macros in c-code broke distcc, since it only sends the preprocessed source file. The solution is to break the compilation into two separate phases of compilation and assembly, and between the two concatenate the assembly macros and the compiled (yet not assembled) source file. Since this is less efficient, this compilation mode is only used when distcc or icecc are used. Note that the assembly stage should also be distributed, if distcc is configured using "CFLAGS=-DENABLE_REMOTE_ASSEMBLE". Reported-by: Logan Gunthorpe Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit --- Makefile | 4 +++- arch/x86/Makefile | 7 +-- scripts/Makefile.build | 30 -- 3 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile index 9fce8b91c15f..c07349fc38c7 100644 --- a/Makefile +++ b/Makefile @@ -743,7 +743,9 @@ KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option, -gsplit-dwarf, -g) else KBUILD_CFLAGS += -g endif -KBUILD_AFLAGS += -Wa,-gdwarf-2 +AFLAGS_DEBUG_INFO = -Wa,-gdwarf-2 +export AFLAGS_DEBUG_INFO +KBUILD_AFLAGS += $(AFLAGS_DEBUG_INFO) endif ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_DWARF4 KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option, -gdwarf-4,) diff --git a/arch/x86/Makefile b/arch/x86/Makefile index f5d7f4134524..b5953cbcc9c8 100644 --- a/arch/x86/Makefile +++ b/arch/x86/Makefile @@ -235,10 +235,13 @@ archscripts: scripts_basic archheaders: $(Q)$(MAKE) $(build)=arch/x86/entry/syscalls all +ASM_MACRO_FILE = arch/x86/kernel/macros.s +export ASM_MACRO_FILE + archmacros: - $(Q)$(MAKE) $(build)=arch/x86/kernel arch/x86/kernel/macros.s + $(Q)$(MAKE) $(build)=arch/x86/kernel $(ASM_MACRO_FILE) -ASM_MACRO_FLAGS = -Wa,arch/x86/kernel/macros.s +ASM_MACRO_FLAGS = -Wa,$(ASM_MACRO_FILE) export ASM_MACRO_FLAGS KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(ASM_MACRO_FLAGS) diff --git a/scripts/Makefile.build b/scripts/Makefile.build index 6a6be9f440cf..bac761c07bf8 100644 --- a/scripts/Makefile.build +++ b/scripts/Makefile.build @@ -155,8 +155,34 @@ $(obj)/%.ll: $(src)/%.c FORCE quiet_cmd_cc_o_c = CC $(quiet_modtag) $@ +# If distcc is used, and when assembly macro files are needed, the compilation +# stage and the assembly stage needs to be separated. Providing the "DISTCC=y" +# option enables separate compilation and assembly. + +cmd_cc_o_c_direct = $(CC) $(c_flags) -c -o $(1) $< + +ifneq ($(shell $(CC) --version 2>&1 | head -n 1 | grep -E 'distcc|icecc'),) +a_flags_no_debug = $(filter-out $(AFLAGS_DEBUG_INFO), $(a_flags)) +c_flags_no_macros = $(filter-out $(ASM_MACRO_FLAGS), $(c_flags)) + +cmd_cc_o_c_two_steps = \ + $(CC) $(c_flags_no_macros) $(DISABLE_LTO) -fverbose-asm -S \ + -o $(@D)/.$(@F:.o=.s) $<; \ + cat $(ASM_MACRO_FILE) $(@D)/.$(@F:.o=.s) > \ + $(@D)/.tmp_$(@F:.o=.s); \ + $(CC) $(a_flags_no_debug) -c -o $(1) $(@D)/.tmp_$(@F:.o=.s);\ + rm -f $(@D)/.$(@F:.o=.s) $(@D)/.tmp_$(@F:.o=.s) \ + +cmd_cc_o_c_helper =\ + $(if $(findstring $(ASM_MACRO_FLAGS),$(c_flags)), \ + $(call cmd_cc_o_c_two_steps, $(1)), \ + $(call cmd_cc_o_c_direct, $(1))) +else +cmd_cc_o_c_helper = $(call cmd_cc_o_c_direct, $(1)) +endif + ifndef CONFIG_MODVERSIONS -cmd_cc_o_c = $(CC) $(c_flags) -c -o $@ $< +cmd_cc_o_c = $(call cmd_cc_o_c_helper,$@) else # When module versioning is enabled the following steps are executed: @@ -171,7 +197,7 @@ else # replace the unresolved symbols __crc_exported_symbol with # the actual value of the checksum generated by
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
On 13/11/18 11:34 AM, Nadav Amit wrote: > Just one question before I send v2, since I have second thoughts. Does it > make sense to require the “DISTCC” make parameter, or should it be set in > the Kconfig? It can be detected automatically, the same way gcc/clang are > detected or manually through a config option. I very much prefer the make variable as it can be set in the environment without having to change the Kconfig. Logan
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
On 13/11/18 11:34 AM, Nadav Amit wrote: > Just one question before I send v2, since I have second thoughts. Does it > make sense to require the “DISTCC” make parameter, or should it be set in > the Kconfig? It can be detected automatically, the same way gcc/clang are > detected or manually through a config option. I very much prefer the make variable as it can be set in the environment without having to change the Kconfig. Logan
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
From: Nadav Amit Sent: November 13, 2018 at 5:55:34 PM GMT > To: Ingo Molnar > Cc: Ingo Molnar , Masahiro Yamada > , Michal Marek , > Thomas Gleixner , Borislav Petkov , H. > Peter Anvin , X86 ML , Linux Kbuild mailing > list , LKML , > Logan Gunthorpe > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros > > > From: Ingo Molnar > Sent: November 13, 2018 at 11:30:00 AM GMT >> To: Nadav Amit >> Cc: Ingo Molnar , Masahiro Yamada >> , Michal Marek , >> Thomas Gleixner , Borislav Petkov , H. >> Peter Anvin , x...@kernel.org, linux-kbu...@vger.kernel.org, >> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros >> >> >> >> * Nadav Amit wrote: >> >>> Introducing the use of asm macros in c-code broke distcc, since it only >>> sends the preprocessed source file. The solution is to break the >>> compilation into two separate phases of compilation and assembly, and >>> between the two concatanate the assembly macros and the compiled (yet >> >> s/concatenate >> >>> not assembled) source file. Since this is less efficient, this >>> compilation mode is only used when make is called with the "DISTCC=y" >>> parameter. >>> >>> Note that the assembly stage should also be distributed, if distcc is >>> configured using "CFLAGS=-DENABLE_REMOTE_ASSEMBLE". >> >> It's a bit sad that we regressed distcc performance … > > I don’t know what the actual impact is, but Logan, who reported the bug says > there is an alternative solution for when distcc-pump is used (which > presumably would have ~zero performance degradation). distcc is really > fragile IMHO - it’s enough that it finds what looks like two source files in > the compiler command arguments for it to fall back to local compilation. > > [ In this regard, the distcc-pump solution would *not* work if distcc is > built with support for distributed assembly, since it will consider the .s > file as a second source file. ] > >>> +# If distcc is used, then when an assembly macro files is needed, the >>> +# compilation stage and the assembly stage need to be separated. Providing >>> +# "DISTCC=y" option enables the separate compilation and assembly. >> >> Let's fix the various typos: >> >>> +# If distcc is used, and when assembly macro files are needed, the >>> +# compilation stage and the assembly stage needs to be separated. >>> +# Providing the "DISTCC=y" option enables separate compilation and >>> +# assembly. > > That’s grammar, not typos ;-) > > Sorry for that - I will fix it an send v2 (as well as the whitespace noise). Just one question before I send v2, since I have second thoughts. Does it make sense to require the “DISTCC” make parameter, or should it be set in the Kconfig? It can be detected automatically, the same way gcc/clang are detected or manually through a config option.
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
From: Nadav Amit Sent: November 13, 2018 at 5:55:34 PM GMT > To: Ingo Molnar > Cc: Ingo Molnar , Masahiro Yamada > , Michal Marek , > Thomas Gleixner , Borislav Petkov , H. > Peter Anvin , X86 ML , Linux Kbuild mailing > list , LKML , > Logan Gunthorpe > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros > > > From: Ingo Molnar > Sent: November 13, 2018 at 11:30:00 AM GMT >> To: Nadav Amit >> Cc: Ingo Molnar , Masahiro Yamada >> , Michal Marek , >> Thomas Gleixner , Borislav Petkov , H. >> Peter Anvin , x...@kernel.org, linux-kbu...@vger.kernel.org, >> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros >> >> >> >> * Nadav Amit wrote: >> >>> Introducing the use of asm macros in c-code broke distcc, since it only >>> sends the preprocessed source file. The solution is to break the >>> compilation into two separate phases of compilation and assembly, and >>> between the two concatanate the assembly macros and the compiled (yet >> >> s/concatenate >> >>> not assembled) source file. Since this is less efficient, this >>> compilation mode is only used when make is called with the "DISTCC=y" >>> parameter. >>> >>> Note that the assembly stage should also be distributed, if distcc is >>> configured using "CFLAGS=-DENABLE_REMOTE_ASSEMBLE". >> >> It's a bit sad that we regressed distcc performance … > > I don’t know what the actual impact is, but Logan, who reported the bug says > there is an alternative solution for when distcc-pump is used (which > presumably would have ~zero performance degradation). distcc is really > fragile IMHO - it’s enough that it finds what looks like two source files in > the compiler command arguments for it to fall back to local compilation. > > [ In this regard, the distcc-pump solution would *not* work if distcc is > built with support for distributed assembly, since it will consider the .s > file as a second source file. ] > >>> +# If distcc is used, then when an assembly macro files is needed, the >>> +# compilation stage and the assembly stage need to be separated. Providing >>> +# "DISTCC=y" option enables the separate compilation and assembly. >> >> Let's fix the various typos: >> >>> +# If distcc is used, and when assembly macro files are needed, the >>> +# compilation stage and the assembly stage needs to be separated. >>> +# Providing the "DISTCC=y" option enables separate compilation and >>> +# assembly. > > That’s grammar, not typos ;-) > > Sorry for that - I will fix it an send v2 (as well as the whitespace noise). Just one question before I send v2, since I have second thoughts. Does it make sense to require the “DISTCC” make parameter, or should it be set in the Kconfig? It can be detected automatically, the same way gcc/clang are detected or manually through a config option.
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
From: Ingo Molnar Sent: November 13, 2018 at 11:30:00 AM GMT > To: Nadav Amit > Cc: Ingo Molnar , Masahiro Yamada > , Michal Marek , > Thomas Gleixner , Borislav Petkov , H. > Peter Anvin , x...@kernel.org, linux-kbu...@vger.kernel.org, > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros > > > > * Nadav Amit wrote: > >> Introducing the use of asm macros in c-code broke distcc, since it only >> sends the preprocessed source file. The solution is to break the >> compilation into two separate phases of compilation and assembly, and >> between the two concatanate the assembly macros and the compiled (yet > > s/concatenate > >> not assembled) source file. Since this is less efficient, this >> compilation mode is only used when make is called with the "DISTCC=y" >> parameter. >> >> Note that the assembly stage should also be distributed, if distcc is >> configured using "CFLAGS=-DENABLE_REMOTE_ASSEMBLE". > > It's a bit sad that we regressed distcc performance … I don’t know what the actual impact is, but Logan, who reported the bug says there is an alternative solution for when distcc-pump is used (which presumably would have ~zero performance degradation). distcc is really fragile IMHO - it’s enough that it finds what looks like two source files in the compiler command arguments for it to fall back to local compilation. [ In this regard, the distcc-pump solution would *not* work if distcc is built with support for distributed assembly, since it will consider the .s file as a second source file. ] >> +# If distcc is used, then when an assembly macro files is needed, the >> +# compilation stage and the assembly stage need to be separated. Providing >> +# "DISTCC=y" option enables the separate compilation and assembly. > > Let's fix the various typos: > >> +# If distcc is used, and when assembly macro files are needed, the >> +# compilation stage and the assembly stage needs to be separated. >> +# Providing the "DISTCC=y" option enables separate compilation and >> +# assembly. That’s grammar, not typos ;-) Sorry for that - I will fix it an send v2 (as well as the whitespace noise). Regards, Nadav
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
From: Ingo Molnar Sent: November 13, 2018 at 11:30:00 AM GMT > To: Nadav Amit > Cc: Ingo Molnar , Masahiro Yamada > , Michal Marek , > Thomas Gleixner , Borislav Petkov , H. > Peter Anvin , x...@kernel.org, linux-kbu...@vger.kernel.org, > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros > > > > * Nadav Amit wrote: > >> Introducing the use of asm macros in c-code broke distcc, since it only >> sends the preprocessed source file. The solution is to break the >> compilation into two separate phases of compilation and assembly, and >> between the two concatanate the assembly macros and the compiled (yet > > s/concatenate > >> not assembled) source file. Since this is less efficient, this >> compilation mode is only used when make is called with the "DISTCC=y" >> parameter. >> >> Note that the assembly stage should also be distributed, if distcc is >> configured using "CFLAGS=-DENABLE_REMOTE_ASSEMBLE". > > It's a bit sad that we regressed distcc performance … I don’t know what the actual impact is, but Logan, who reported the bug says there is an alternative solution for when distcc-pump is used (which presumably would have ~zero performance degradation). distcc is really fragile IMHO - it’s enough that it finds what looks like two source files in the compiler command arguments for it to fall back to local compilation. [ In this regard, the distcc-pump solution would *not* work if distcc is built with support for distributed assembly, since it will consider the .s file as a second source file. ] >> +# If distcc is used, then when an assembly macro files is needed, the >> +# compilation stage and the assembly stage need to be separated. Providing >> +# "DISTCC=y" option enables the separate compilation and assembly. > > Let's fix the various typos: > >> +# If distcc is used, and when assembly macro files are needed, the >> +# compilation stage and the assembly stage needs to be separated. >> +# Providing the "DISTCC=y" option enables separate compilation and >> +# assembly. That’s grammar, not typos ;-) Sorry for that - I will fix it an send v2 (as well as the whitespace noise). Regards, Nadav
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
* Nadav Amit wrote: > Introducing the use of asm macros in c-code broke distcc, since it only > sends the preprocessed source file. The solution is to break the > compilation into two separate phases of compilation and assembly, and > between the two concatanate the assembly macros and the compiled (yet s/concatenate > not assembled) source file. Since this is less efficient, this > compilation mode is only used when make is called with the "DISTCC=y" > parameter. > > Note that the assembly stage should also be distributed, if distcc is > configured using "CFLAGS=-DENABLE_REMOTE_ASSEMBLE". It's a bit sad that we regressed distcc performance ... > +# If distcc is used, then when an assembly macro files is needed, the > +# compilation stage and the assembly stage need to be separated. Providing > +# "DISTCC=y" option enables the separate compilation and assembly. Let's fix the various typos: > +# If distcc is used, and when assembly macro files are needed, the > +# compilation stage and the assembly stage needs to be separated. > +# Providing the "DISTCC=y" option enables separate compilation and > +# assembly. > +cmd_cc_o_c_direct = $(CC) $(c_flags) -c -o $(1) $< > + > +ifeq ($(DISTCC),y) > +a_flags_no_debug = $(filter-out $(AFLAGS_DEBUG_INFO), $(a_flags)) > +c_flags_no_macros = $(filter-out $(ASM_MACRO_FLAGS), $(c_flags)) > + > +cmd_cc_o_c_two_steps = > \ > + $(CC) $(c_flags_no_macros) $(DISABLE_LTO) -fverbose-asm -S \ > + -o $(@D)/.$(@F:.o=.s) $< ; \ > + cat $(ASM_MACRO_FILE) $(@D)/.$(@F:.o=.s) > \ > + $(@D)/.tmp_$(@F:.o=.s); \ > + $(CC) $(a_flags_no_debug) -c -o $(1) $(@D)/.tmp_$(@F:.o=.s) ; \ > + rm -f $(@D)/.$(@F:.o=.s) $(@D)/.tmp_$(@F:.o=.s) \ > + > +cmd_cc_o_c_helper = > \ > + $(if $(findstring $(ASM_MACRO_FLAGS),$(c_flags)), \ > + $(call cmd_cc_o_c_two_steps, $(1)), \ > + $(call cmd_cc_o_c_direct, $(1))) There are various stray + whitespace noise errors in the chunks above. Thanks, Ingo
Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
* Nadav Amit wrote: > Introducing the use of asm macros in c-code broke distcc, since it only > sends the preprocessed source file. The solution is to break the > compilation into two separate phases of compilation and assembly, and > between the two concatanate the assembly macros and the compiled (yet s/concatenate > not assembled) source file. Since this is less efficient, this > compilation mode is only used when make is called with the "DISTCC=y" > parameter. > > Note that the assembly stage should also be distributed, if distcc is > configured using "CFLAGS=-DENABLE_REMOTE_ASSEMBLE". It's a bit sad that we regressed distcc performance ... > +# If distcc is used, then when an assembly macro files is needed, the > +# compilation stage and the assembly stage need to be separated. Providing > +# "DISTCC=y" option enables the separate compilation and assembly. Let's fix the various typos: > +# If distcc is used, and when assembly macro files are needed, the > +# compilation stage and the assembly stage needs to be separated. > +# Providing the "DISTCC=y" option enables separate compilation and > +# assembly. > +cmd_cc_o_c_direct = $(CC) $(c_flags) -c -o $(1) $< > + > +ifeq ($(DISTCC),y) > +a_flags_no_debug = $(filter-out $(AFLAGS_DEBUG_INFO), $(a_flags)) > +c_flags_no_macros = $(filter-out $(ASM_MACRO_FLAGS), $(c_flags)) > + > +cmd_cc_o_c_two_steps = > \ > + $(CC) $(c_flags_no_macros) $(DISABLE_LTO) -fverbose-asm -S \ > + -o $(@D)/.$(@F:.o=.s) $< ; \ > + cat $(ASM_MACRO_FILE) $(@D)/.$(@F:.o=.s) > \ > + $(@D)/.tmp_$(@F:.o=.s); \ > + $(CC) $(a_flags_no_debug) -c -o $(1) $(@D)/.tmp_$(@F:.o=.s) ; \ > + rm -f $(@D)/.$(@F:.o=.s) $(@D)/.tmp_$(@F:.o=.s) \ > + > +cmd_cc_o_c_helper = > \ > + $(if $(findstring $(ASM_MACRO_FLAGS),$(c_flags)), \ > + $(call cmd_cc_o_c_two_steps, $(1)), \ > + $(call cmd_cc_o_c_direct, $(1))) There are various stray + whitespace noise errors in the chunks above. Thanks, Ingo
[PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
Introducing the use of asm macros in c-code broke distcc, since it only sends the preprocessed source file. The solution is to break the compilation into two separate phases of compilation and assembly, and between the two concatanate the assembly macros and the compiled (yet not assembled) source file. Since this is less efficient, this compilation mode is only used when make is called with the "DISTCC=y" parameter. Note that the assembly stage should also be distributed, if distcc is configured using "CFLAGS=-DENABLE_REMOTE_ASSEMBLE". Reported-by: Logan Gunthorpe Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit --- Makefile | 4 +++- arch/x86/Makefile | 7 +-- scripts/Makefile.build | 29 +++-- 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile index 9fce8b91c15f..c07349fc38c7 100644 --- a/Makefile +++ b/Makefile @@ -743,7 +743,9 @@ KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option, -gsplit-dwarf, -g) else KBUILD_CFLAGS += -g endif -KBUILD_AFLAGS += -Wa,-gdwarf-2 +AFLAGS_DEBUG_INFO = -Wa,-gdwarf-2 +export AFLAGS_DEBUG_INFO +KBUILD_AFLAGS += $(AFLAGS_DEBUG_INFO) endif ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_DWARF4 KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option, -gdwarf-4,) diff --git a/arch/x86/Makefile b/arch/x86/Makefile index f5d7f4134524..b5953cbcc9c8 100644 --- a/arch/x86/Makefile +++ b/arch/x86/Makefile @@ -235,10 +235,13 @@ archscripts: scripts_basic archheaders: $(Q)$(MAKE) $(build)=arch/x86/entry/syscalls all +ASM_MACRO_FILE = arch/x86/kernel/macros.s +export ASM_MACRO_FILE + archmacros: - $(Q)$(MAKE) $(build)=arch/x86/kernel arch/x86/kernel/macros.s + $(Q)$(MAKE) $(build)=arch/x86/kernel $(ASM_MACRO_FILE) -ASM_MACRO_FLAGS = -Wa,arch/x86/kernel/macros.s +ASM_MACRO_FLAGS = -Wa,$(ASM_MACRO_FILE) export ASM_MACRO_FLAGS KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(ASM_MACRO_FLAGS) diff --git a/scripts/Makefile.build b/scripts/Makefile.build index 6a6be9f440cf..d2213b041408 100644 --- a/scripts/Makefile.build +++ b/scripts/Makefile.build @@ -155,8 +155,33 @@ $(obj)/%.ll: $(src)/%.c FORCE quiet_cmd_cc_o_c = CC $(quiet_modtag) $@ +# If distcc is used, then when an assembly macro files is needed, the +# compilation stage and the assembly stage need to be separated. Providing +# "DISTCC=y" option enables the separate compilation and assembly. +cmd_cc_o_c_direct = $(CC) $(c_flags) -c -o $(1) $< + +ifeq ($(DISTCC),y) +a_flags_no_debug = $(filter-out $(AFLAGS_DEBUG_INFO), $(a_flags)) +c_flags_no_macros = $(filter-out $(ASM_MACRO_FLAGS), $(c_flags)) + +cmd_cc_o_c_two_steps = \ + $(CC) $(c_flags_no_macros) $(DISABLE_LTO) -fverbose-asm -S \ + -o $(@D)/.$(@F:.o=.s) $< ; \ + cat $(ASM_MACRO_FILE) $(@D)/.$(@F:.o=.s) > \ + $(@D)/.tmp_$(@F:.o=.s); \ + $(CC) $(a_flags_no_debug) -c -o $(1) $(@D)/.tmp_$(@F:.o=.s) ; \ + rm -f $(@D)/.$(@F:.o=.s) $(@D)/.tmp_$(@F:.o=.s) \ + +cmd_cc_o_c_helper = \ + $(if $(findstring $(ASM_MACRO_FLAGS),$(c_flags)), \ + $(call cmd_cc_o_c_two_steps, $(1)), \ + $(call cmd_cc_o_c_direct, $(1))) +else +cmd_cc_o_c_helper = $(call cmd_cc_o_c_direct, $(1)) +endif + ifndef CONFIG_MODVERSIONS -cmd_cc_o_c = $(CC) $(c_flags) -c -o $@ $< +cmd_cc_o_c = $(call cmd_cc_o_c_helper,$@) else # When module versioning is enabled the following steps are executed: @@ -171,7 +196,7 @@ else # replace the unresolved symbols __crc_exported_symbol with # the actual value of the checksum generated by genksyms -cmd_cc_o_c = $(CC) $(c_flags) -c -o $(@D)/.tmp_$(@F) $< +cmd_cc_o_c = $(call cmd_cc_o_c_helper,$(@D)/.tmp_$(@F)) cmd_modversions_c = \ if $(OBJDUMP) -h $(@D)/.tmp_$(@F) | grep -q __ksymtab; then \ -- 2.17.1
[PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
Introducing the use of asm macros in c-code broke distcc, since it only sends the preprocessed source file. The solution is to break the compilation into two separate phases of compilation and assembly, and between the two concatanate the assembly macros and the compiled (yet not assembled) source file. Since this is less efficient, this compilation mode is only used when make is called with the "DISTCC=y" parameter. Note that the assembly stage should also be distributed, if distcc is configured using "CFLAGS=-DENABLE_REMOTE_ASSEMBLE". Reported-by: Logan Gunthorpe Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit --- Makefile | 4 +++- arch/x86/Makefile | 7 +-- scripts/Makefile.build | 29 +++-- 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile index 9fce8b91c15f..c07349fc38c7 100644 --- a/Makefile +++ b/Makefile @@ -743,7 +743,9 @@ KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option, -gsplit-dwarf, -g) else KBUILD_CFLAGS += -g endif -KBUILD_AFLAGS += -Wa,-gdwarf-2 +AFLAGS_DEBUG_INFO = -Wa,-gdwarf-2 +export AFLAGS_DEBUG_INFO +KBUILD_AFLAGS += $(AFLAGS_DEBUG_INFO) endif ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_DWARF4 KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(call cc-option, -gdwarf-4,) diff --git a/arch/x86/Makefile b/arch/x86/Makefile index f5d7f4134524..b5953cbcc9c8 100644 --- a/arch/x86/Makefile +++ b/arch/x86/Makefile @@ -235,10 +235,13 @@ archscripts: scripts_basic archheaders: $(Q)$(MAKE) $(build)=arch/x86/entry/syscalls all +ASM_MACRO_FILE = arch/x86/kernel/macros.s +export ASM_MACRO_FILE + archmacros: - $(Q)$(MAKE) $(build)=arch/x86/kernel arch/x86/kernel/macros.s + $(Q)$(MAKE) $(build)=arch/x86/kernel $(ASM_MACRO_FILE) -ASM_MACRO_FLAGS = -Wa,arch/x86/kernel/macros.s +ASM_MACRO_FLAGS = -Wa,$(ASM_MACRO_FILE) export ASM_MACRO_FLAGS KBUILD_CFLAGS += $(ASM_MACRO_FLAGS) diff --git a/scripts/Makefile.build b/scripts/Makefile.build index 6a6be9f440cf..d2213b041408 100644 --- a/scripts/Makefile.build +++ b/scripts/Makefile.build @@ -155,8 +155,33 @@ $(obj)/%.ll: $(src)/%.c FORCE quiet_cmd_cc_o_c = CC $(quiet_modtag) $@ +# If distcc is used, then when an assembly macro files is needed, the +# compilation stage and the assembly stage need to be separated. Providing +# "DISTCC=y" option enables the separate compilation and assembly. +cmd_cc_o_c_direct = $(CC) $(c_flags) -c -o $(1) $< + +ifeq ($(DISTCC),y) +a_flags_no_debug = $(filter-out $(AFLAGS_DEBUG_INFO), $(a_flags)) +c_flags_no_macros = $(filter-out $(ASM_MACRO_FLAGS), $(c_flags)) + +cmd_cc_o_c_two_steps = \ + $(CC) $(c_flags_no_macros) $(DISABLE_LTO) -fverbose-asm -S \ + -o $(@D)/.$(@F:.o=.s) $< ; \ + cat $(ASM_MACRO_FILE) $(@D)/.$(@F:.o=.s) > \ + $(@D)/.tmp_$(@F:.o=.s); \ + $(CC) $(a_flags_no_debug) -c -o $(1) $(@D)/.tmp_$(@F:.o=.s) ; \ + rm -f $(@D)/.$(@F:.o=.s) $(@D)/.tmp_$(@F:.o=.s) \ + +cmd_cc_o_c_helper = \ + $(if $(findstring $(ASM_MACRO_FLAGS),$(c_flags)), \ + $(call cmd_cc_o_c_two_steps, $(1)), \ + $(call cmd_cc_o_c_direct, $(1))) +else +cmd_cc_o_c_helper = $(call cmd_cc_o_c_direct, $(1)) +endif + ifndef CONFIG_MODVERSIONS -cmd_cc_o_c = $(CC) $(c_flags) -c -o $@ $< +cmd_cc_o_c = $(call cmd_cc_o_c_helper,$@) else # When module versioning is enabled the following steps are executed: @@ -171,7 +196,7 @@ else # replace the unresolved symbols __crc_exported_symbol with # the actual value of the checksum generated by genksyms -cmd_cc_o_c = $(CC) $(c_flags) -c -o $(@D)/.tmp_$(@F) $< +cmd_cc_o_c = $(call cmd_cc_o_c_helper,$(@D)/.tmp_$(@F)) cmd_modversions_c = \ if $(OBJDUMP) -h $(@D)/.tmp_$(@F) | grep -q __ksymtab; then \ -- 2.17.1
