Re: Linux 4.9.180 build fails with gcc 9 and 'cleanup_module' specifies less restrictive attribute than its target …
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 1:55 PM Greg KH wrote: > > I think I got it working now, all looks good for 4.9.y, 4.14.y and > 4.19.y for gcc9 so far. I'll leave 4.4.y alone :) You are welcome! I am glad we can now use gcc 9 easily. I will be keeping a look into gcc 10. :) Cheers, Miguel
Re: Linux 4.9.180 build fails with gcc 9 and 'cleanup_module' specifies less restrictive attribute than its target …
On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 06:55:53PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 5:56 PM Greg KH wrote: > > > > I see a ton of warnings on those kernels today. I'll look into it next > > week after I apply your patches to see what's missing. > > Yeah, the objtool ones -- I thought you were referring to the > -Wmissing-attributes that Rolf asked about (I am not sure why Rolf has > those as -Werror rather than warnings, though). > > I can take a look at the objtool ones and see if applying some of the > patches helps, although I have never looked into how objtool works, so > no promises :) I think I got it working now, all looks good for 4.9.y, 4.14.y and 4.19.y for gcc9 so far. I'll leave 4.4.y alone :) thanks, greg k-h
Re: Linux 4.9.180 build fails with gcc 9 and 'cleanup_module' specifies less restrictive attribute than its target …
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 5:56 PM Greg KH wrote: > > I see a ton of warnings on those kernels today. I'll look into it next > week after I apply your patches to see what's missing. Yeah, the objtool ones -- I thought you were referring to the -Wmissing-attributes that Rolf asked about (I am not sure why Rolf has those as -Werror rather than warnings, though). I can take a look at the objtool ones and see if applying some of the patches helps, although I have never looked into how objtool works, so no promises :) Cheers, Miguel
Re: Linux 4.9.180 build fails with gcc 9 and 'cleanup_module' specifies less restrictive attribute than its target …
On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 03:01:13PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:25 PM Greg KH wrote: > > > > But it still doesn't work for 4.14.y and 4.19.y, so we are probably > > missing something there. So if you want to fix that up, I'd appreciate > > patches to do so :) > > Hm... For 4.19.y and 4.14.y, I cannot see the init/exit_module > warnings under GCC 9.1.1. What do you mean it does not work? I see a ton of warnings on those kernels today. I'll look into it next week after I apply your patches to see what's missing. thanks, greg k-h
Re: Linux 4.9.180 build fails with gcc 9 and 'cleanup_module' specifies less restrictive attribute than its target …
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:25 PM Greg KH wrote: > > But it still doesn't work for 4.14.y and 4.19.y, so we are probably > missing something there. So if you want to fix that up, I'd appreciate > patches to do so :) Hm... For 4.19.y and 4.14.y, I cannot see the init/exit_module warnings under GCC 9.1.1. What do you mean it does not work? Cheers, Miguel
Re: Linux 4.9.180 build fails with gcc 9 and 'cleanup_module' specifies less restrictive attribute than its target …
On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 12:39:38PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 12:33 PM Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 12:19:33PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:17 AM Rolf Eike Beer wrote: > > > > > > > > Am Samstag, 8. Juni 2019, 14:00:34 CEST schrieb Miguel Ojeda: > > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 8:59 PM Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > "manually fixing it up" means "hacked it to pieces" to me, I have no > > > > > > idea what the end result really was :) > > > > > > > > > > > > If someone wants to send me some patches I can actually apply, that > > > > > > would be best... > > > > > > > > > > I will give it a go whenever I get some free time :) > > > > > > > > I fear this has never happened, did it? > > > > > > No. Between summer, holidays and a conference I didn't get to do it. > > > > > > Done the minimal approach here: > > > > > > https://github.com/ojeda/linux/commits/compiler-attributes-backport > > > > > > Tested building a handful of drivers with gcc 4.6.4, 8.3.0 and 9.1.1. > > > > > > Greg, I could backport the entire compiler_attributes.h, but given > > > this is stable, we are supposed to minimize changes, right? > > > > > > I tried to imitate what you do in other stable patches, please check > > > the Cc:, Link: lines and the "commit ... upstream" just in case. > > > > If only those 2 patches are all that is needed, nice! I'll gladly take > > them, can you send them to me (and cc: the stable list) in email so I > > can queue them up for the next round of releases after this one? > > Done! Please double check, since I am not used to send to stable. Yes, got them, thanks! I'll queue them up next week for the next round of releases and let you know if I have any problems with them. thanks again, greg k-h
Re: Linux 4.9.180 build fails with gcc 9 and 'cleanup_module' specifies less restrictive attribute than its target …
On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 01:00:30PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 12:33 PM Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 12:19:33PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:17 AM Rolf Eike Beer wrote: > > > > > > > > Am Samstag, 8. Juni 2019, 14:00:34 CEST schrieb Miguel Ojeda: > > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 8:59 PM Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > "manually fixing it up" means "hacked it to pieces" to me, I have no > > > > > > idea what the end result really was :) > > > > > > > > > > > > If someone wants to send me some patches I can actually apply, that > > > > > > would be best... > > > > > > > > > > I will give it a go whenever I get some free time :) > > > > > > > > I fear this has never happened, did it? > > > > > > No. Between summer, holidays and a conference I didn't get to do it. > > > > > > Done the minimal approach here: > > > > > > https://github.com/ojeda/linux/commits/compiler-attributes-backport > > > > > > Tested building a handful of drivers with gcc 4.6.4, 8.3.0 and 9.1.1. > > > > > > Greg, I could backport the entire compiler_attributes.h, but given > > > this is stable, we are supposed to minimize changes, right? > > > > > > I tried to imitate what you do in other stable patches, please check > > > the Cc:, Link: lines and the "commit ... upstream" just in case. > > > > If only those 2 patches are all that is needed, nice! I'll gladly take > > them, can you send them to me (and cc: the stable list) in email so I > > can queue them up for the next round of releases after this one? > > At least for that particular problem, yeah -- I haven't done a full allmod. > > By the way, I just checked 4.14.y and I noticed you had already > backported it, although going for another solution: > > +#if GCC_VERSION >= 90100 > +#define __copy(symbol) __attribute__((__copy__(symbol))) > +#endif > > and then: > > +#ifndef __copy > +# define __copy(symbol) > +#endif But it still doesn't work for 4.14.y and 4.19.y, so we are probably missing something there. So if you want to fix that up, I'd appreciate patches to do so :) thanks, greg k-h
Re: Linux 4.9.180 build fails with gcc 9 and 'cleanup_module' specifies less restrictive attribute than its target …
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 12:33 PM Greg KH wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 12:19:33PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:17 AM Rolf Eike Beer wrote: > > > > > > Am Samstag, 8. Juni 2019, 14:00:34 CEST schrieb Miguel Ojeda: > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 8:59 PM Greg KH wrote: > > > > > "manually fixing it up" means "hacked it to pieces" to me, I have no > > > > > idea what the end result really was :) > > > > > > > > > > If someone wants to send me some patches I can actually apply, that > > > > > would be best... > > > > > > > > I will give it a go whenever I get some free time :) > > > > > > I fear this has never happened, did it? > > > > No. Between summer, holidays and a conference I didn't get to do it. > > > > Done the minimal approach here: > > > > https://github.com/ojeda/linux/commits/compiler-attributes-backport > > > > Tested building a handful of drivers with gcc 4.6.4, 8.3.0 and 9.1.1. > > > > Greg, I could backport the entire compiler_attributes.h, but given > > this is stable, we are supposed to minimize changes, right? > > > > I tried to imitate what you do in other stable patches, please check > > the Cc:, Link: lines and the "commit ... upstream" just in case. > > If only those 2 patches are all that is needed, nice! I'll gladly take > them, can you send them to me (and cc: the stable list) in email so I > can queue them up for the next round of releases after this one? At least for that particular problem, yeah -- I haven't done a full allmod. By the way, I just checked 4.14.y and I noticed you had already backported it, although going for another solution: +#if GCC_VERSION >= 90100 +#define __copy(symbol) __attribute__((__copy__(symbol))) +#endif and then: +#ifndef __copy +# define __copy(symbol) +#endif Cheers, Miguel
Re: Linux 4.9.180 build fails with gcc 9 and 'cleanup_module' specifies less restrictive attribute than its target …
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 12:33 PM Greg KH wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 12:19:33PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:17 AM Rolf Eike Beer wrote: > > > > > > Am Samstag, 8. Juni 2019, 14:00:34 CEST schrieb Miguel Ojeda: > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 8:59 PM Greg KH wrote: > > > > > "manually fixing it up" means "hacked it to pieces" to me, I have no > > > > > idea what the end result really was :) > > > > > > > > > > If someone wants to send me some patches I can actually apply, that > > > > > would be best... > > > > > > > > I will give it a go whenever I get some free time :) > > > > > > I fear this has never happened, did it? > > > > No. Between summer, holidays and a conference I didn't get to do it. > > > > Done the minimal approach here: > > > > https://github.com/ojeda/linux/commits/compiler-attributes-backport > > > > Tested building a handful of drivers with gcc 4.6.4, 8.3.0 and 9.1.1. > > > > Greg, I could backport the entire compiler_attributes.h, but given > > this is stable, we are supposed to minimize changes, right? > > > > I tried to imitate what you do in other stable patches, please check > > the Cc:, Link: lines and the "commit ... upstream" just in case. > > If only those 2 patches are all that is needed, nice! I'll gladly take > them, can you send them to me (and cc: the stable list) in email so I > can queue them up for the next round of releases after this one? Done! Please double check, since I am not used to send to stable. Cheers, Miguel
Re: Linux 4.9.180 build fails with gcc 9 and 'cleanup_module' specifies less restrictive attribute than its target …
On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 12:19:33PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:17 AM Rolf Eike Beer wrote: > > > > Am Samstag, 8. Juni 2019, 14:00:34 CEST schrieb Miguel Ojeda: > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 8:59 PM Greg KH wrote: > > > > "manually fixing it up" means "hacked it to pieces" to me, I have no > > > > idea what the end result really was :) > > > > > > > > If someone wants to send me some patches I can actually apply, that > > > > would be best... > > > > > > I will give it a go whenever I get some free time :) > > > > I fear this has never happened, did it? > > No. Between summer, holidays and a conference I didn't get to do it. > > Done the minimal approach here: > > https://github.com/ojeda/linux/commits/compiler-attributes-backport > > Tested building a handful of drivers with gcc 4.6.4, 8.3.0 and 9.1.1. > > Greg, I could backport the entire compiler_attributes.h, but given > this is stable, we are supposed to minimize changes, right? > > I tried to imitate what you do in other stable patches, please check > the Cc:, Link: lines and the "commit ... upstream" just in case. If only those 2 patches are all that is needed, nice! I'll gladly take them, can you send them to me (and cc: the stable list) in email so I can queue them up for the next round of releases after this one? thanks, greg k-h
Re: Linux 4.9.180 build fails with gcc 9 and 'cleanup_module' specifies less restrictive attribute than its target …
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 10:17 AM Rolf Eike Beer wrote: > > Am Samstag, 8. Juni 2019, 14:00:34 CEST schrieb Miguel Ojeda: > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 8:59 PM Greg KH wrote: > > > "manually fixing it up" means "hacked it to pieces" to me, I have no > > > idea what the end result really was :) > > > > > > If someone wants to send me some patches I can actually apply, that > > > would be best... > > > > I will give it a go whenever I get some free time :) > > I fear this has never happened, did it? No. Between summer, holidays and a conference I didn't get to do it. Done the minimal approach here: https://github.com/ojeda/linux/commits/compiler-attributes-backport Tested building a handful of drivers with gcc 4.6.4, 8.3.0 and 9.1.1. Greg, I could backport the entire compiler_attributes.h, but given this is stable, we are supposed to minimize changes, right? I tried to imitate what you do in other stable patches, please check the Cc:, Link: lines and the "commit ... upstream" just in case. HTH, Cheers, Miguel
Re: Linux 4.9.180 build fails with gcc 9 and 'cleanup_module' specifies less restrictive attribute than its target …
On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 10:17:04AM +0200, Rolf Eike Beer wrote: > Am Samstag, 8. Juni 2019, 14:00:34 CEST schrieb Miguel Ojeda: > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 8:59 PM Greg KH wrote: > > > "manually fixing it up" means "hacked it to pieces" to me, I have no > > > idea what the end result really was :) > > > > > > If someone wants to send me some patches I can actually apply, that > > > would be best... > > > > I will give it a go whenever I get some free time :) > > I fear this has never happened, did it? I do not think so, I'm still building 4.9.y and 4.14.y and 4.19.y with gcc8 because of these issues :( thanks, greg k-h
Re: Linux 4.9.180 build fails with gcc 9 and 'cleanup_module' specifies less restrictive attribute than its target …
Am Samstag, 8. Juni 2019, 14:00:34 CEST schrieb Miguel Ojeda: > On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 8:59 PM Greg KH wrote: > > "manually fixing it up" means "hacked it to pieces" to me, I have no > > idea what the end result really was :) > > > > If someone wants to send me some patches I can actually apply, that > > would be best... > > I will give it a go whenever I get some free time :) I fear this has never happened, did it? Eike -- Rolf Eike Beer, emlix GmbH, http://www.emlix.com Fon +49 551 30664-0, Fax +49 551 30664-11 Gothaer Platz 3, 37083 Göttingen, Germany Sitz der Gesellschaft: Göttingen, Amtsgericht Göttingen HR B 3160 Geschäftsführung: Heike Jordan, Dr. Uwe Kracke – Ust-IdNr.: DE 205 198 055 emlix - smart embedded open source signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Linux 4.9.180 build fails with gcc 9 and 'cleanup_module' specifies less restrictive attribute than its target …
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 09:19:15AM +0200, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 6. Juni 2019, 20:59:00 CEST schrieb Greg KH:
> > On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 08:25:28PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 5:29 PM Greg KH wrote:
> > > > And if you want this, you should look at how the backports to 4.14.y
> > > > worked, they did not include a3f8a30f3f00 ("Compiler Attributes: use
> > > > feature checks instead of version checks"), as that gets really messy...
> > >
> > > I am confused -- I interpreted Rolf's message as reporting that he
> > > already successfully built 4.9 by applying a6e60d84989f
> > > ("include/linux/module.h: copy __init/__exit attrs to
> > > init/cleanup_module") and manually fixing it up. But maybe I am
> > > completely wrong... :-)
> >
> > "manually fixing it up" means "hacked it to pieces" to me, I have no
> > idea what the end result really was :)
> >
> > If someone wants to send me some patches I can actually apply, that
> > would be best...
>
> Hi all,
>
> the patch I actually used was this:
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/module.h b/include/linux/module.h
> index 8fa38d3e7538..f5bc4c046461 100644
> --- a/include/linux/module.h
> +++ b/include/linux/module.h
> @@ -129,13 +129,13 @@ extern void cleanup_module(void);
> #define module_init(initfn) \
> static inline initcall_t __maybe_unused __inittest(void)
> \
> { return initfn; } \
> - int init_module(void) __attribute__((alias(#initfn)));
> + int init_module(void) __attribute__((__copy__(initfn)))
> __attribute__((alias(#initfn)));
>
> /* This is only required if you want to be unloadable. */
> #define module_exit(exitfn) \
> static inline exitcall_t __maybe_unused __exittest(void)
> \
> { return exitfn; } \
> - void cleanup_module(void) __attribute__((alias(#exitfn)));
> + void cleanup_module(void) __attribute__((__copy__(exitfn)))
> __attribute__((alias(#exitfn)));
>
> #endif
>
>
> So the final question is: do we want 4.9.x to be buildable with gcc 9.x? If
> yes then we can probably get this patches into shape.
Eventually, yes, we (or at least I) will want to build 4.9.x with gcc
9.x. We went through this same process for gcc 8.x as all of my builder
test machines switched their default version of gcc...
thanks,
greg k-h
Re: Linux 4.9.180 build fails with gcc 9 and 'cleanup_module' specifies less restrictive attribute than its target …
Am Donnerstag, 6. Juni 2019, 20:59:00 CEST schrieb Greg KH:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 08:25:28PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 5:29 PM Greg KH wrote:
> > > And if you want this, you should look at how the backports to 4.14.y
> > > worked, they did not include a3f8a30f3f00 ("Compiler Attributes: use
> > > feature checks instead of version checks"), as that gets really messy...
> >
> > I am confused -- I interpreted Rolf's message as reporting that he
> > already successfully built 4.9 by applying a6e60d84989f
> > ("include/linux/module.h: copy __init/__exit attrs to
> > init/cleanup_module") and manually fixing it up. But maybe I am
> > completely wrong... :-)
>
> "manually fixing it up" means "hacked it to pieces" to me, I have no
> idea what the end result really was :)
>
> If someone wants to send me some patches I can actually apply, that
> would be best...
Hi all,
the patch I actually used was this:
diff --git a/include/linux/module.h b/include/linux/module.h
index 8fa38d3e7538..f5bc4c046461 100644
--- a/include/linux/module.h
+++ b/include/linux/module.h
@@ -129,13 +129,13 @@ extern void cleanup_module(void);
#define module_init(initfn)\
static inline initcall_t __maybe_unused __inittest(void)
\
{ return initfn; } \
- int init_module(void) __attribute__((alias(#initfn)));
+ int init_module(void) __attribute__((__copy__(initfn)))
__attribute__((alias(#initfn)));
/* This is only required if you want to be unloadable. */
#define module_exit(exitfn)\
static inline exitcall_t __maybe_unused __exittest(void)
\
{ return exitfn; } \
- void cleanup_module(void) __attribute__((alias(#exitfn)));
+ void cleanup_module(void) __attribute__((__copy__(exitfn)))
__attribute__((alias(#exitfn)));
#endif
So the final question is: do we want 4.9.x to be buildable with gcc 9.x? If
yes then we can probably get this patches into shape.
Eike
--
Rolf Eike Beer, emlix GmbH, http://www.emlix.com
Fon +49 551 30664-0, Fax +49 551 30664-11
Gothaer Platz 3, 37083 Göttingen, Germany
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Göttingen, Amtsgericht Göttingen HR B 3160
Geschäftsführung: Heike Jordan, Dr. Uwe Kracke – Ust-IdNr.: DE 205 198 055
emlix - smart embedded open source
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Linux 4.9.180 build fails with gcc 9 and 'cleanup_module' specifies less restrictive attribute than its target …
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 8:59 PM Greg KH wrote: > > "manually fixing it up" means "hacked it to pieces" to me, I have no > idea what the end result really was :) > > If someone wants to send me some patches I can actually apply, that > would be best... I will give it a go whenever I get some free time :) Cheers, Miguel
Re: Linux 4.9.180 build fails with gcc 9 and 'cleanup_module' specifies less restrictive attribute than its target …
On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 08:25:28PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 5:29 PM Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > And if you want this, you should look at how the backports to 4.14.y
> > worked, they did not include a3f8a30f3f00 ("Compiler Attributes: use
> > feature checks instead of version checks"), as that gets really messy...
>
> I am confused -- I interpreted Rolf's message as reporting that he
> already successfully built 4.9 by applying a6e60d84989f
> ("include/linux/module.h: copy __init/__exit attrs to
> init/cleanup_module") and manually fixing it up. But maybe I am
> completely wrong... :-)
"manually fixing it up" means "hacked it to pieces" to me, I have no
idea what the end result really was :)
If someone wants to send me some patches I can actually apply, that
would be best...
thanks,
greg k-h
Re: Linux 4.9.180 build fails with gcc 9 and 'cleanup_module' specifies less restrictive attribute than its target …
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 5:29 PM Greg KH wrote:
>
> And if you want this, you should look at how the backports to 4.14.y
> worked, they did not include a3f8a30f3f00 ("Compiler Attributes: use
> feature checks instead of version checks"), as that gets really messy...
I am confused -- I interpreted Rolf's message as reporting that he
already successfully built 4.9 by applying a6e60d84989f
("include/linux/module.h: copy __init/__exit attrs to
init/cleanup_module") and manually fixing it up. But maybe I am
completely wrong... :-)
Cheers,
Miguel
Re: Linux 4.9.180 build fails with gcc 9 and 'cleanup_module' specifies less restrictive attribute than its target …
On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 05:27:46PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 03:16:03PM +0200, Rolf Eike Beer wrote: > > I have at least these 2 instances: > > > > > > In file included from > > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/drm/drm_vma_manager.h:28, > > from /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/drm/drmP.h:78, > > from > > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/drm/drm_modeset_helper.h:26, > > from > > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/drm/drm_atomic_helper.h:33, > > from > > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_drv.c:24: > > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/linux/module.h:138:7: error: > > 'cleanup_module' specifies less restrictive attribute than its target > > 'tilcdc_drm_fini': 'cold' [-Werror=missing-attributes] > > 138 | void cleanup_module(void) __attribute__((alias(#exitfn))); > > | ^~ > > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_drv.c:757:1: > > note: in expansion of macro 'module_exit' > > 757 | module_exit(tilcdc_drm_fini); > > | ^~~ > > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_drv.c:748:20: > > note: 'cleanup_module' target declared here > > 748 | static void __exit tilcdc_drm_fini(void) > > |^~~ > > In file included from > > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/drm/drm_vma_manager.h:28, > > from /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/drm/drmP.h:78, > > from > > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/drm/drm_modeset_helper.h:26, > > from > > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/drm/drm_atomic_helper.h:33, > > from > > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_drv.c:24: > > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/linux/module.h:132:6: error: > > 'init_module' specifies less restrictive attribute than its target > > 'tilcdc_drm_init': 'cold' [-Werror=missing-attributes] > > 132 | int init_module(void) __attribute__((alias(#initfn))); > > | ^~~ > > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_drv.c:756:1: > > note: in expansion of macro 'module_init' > > 756 | module_init(tilcdc_drm_init); > > | ^~~ > > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_drv.c:740:19: > > note: 'init_module' target declared here > > 740 | static int __init tilcdc_drm_init(void) > > | ^~~ > > > > > > > > In file included from > > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/arch/powerpc/platforms/52xx/mpc52xx_lpbfifo.c:17: > > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/linux/module.h:138:7: error: > > 'cleanup_module' specifies less restrictive attribute than its target > > 'mpc52xx_lpbfifo_driver_exit': 'cold' [-Werror=missing-attributes] > > 138 | void cleanup_module(void) __attribute__((alias(#exitfn))); > > | ^~ > > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/linux/device.h:1360:1: note: in > > expansion of macro 'module_exit' > > 1360 | module_exit(__driver##_exit); > > | ^~~ > > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/linux/platform_device.h:228:2: note: in > > expansion of macro 'module_driver' > > 228 | module_driver(__platform_driver, platform_driver_register, \ > > | ^ > > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/arch/powerpc/platforms/52xx/mpc52xx_lpbfifo.c:581:1: > > note: in expansion of macro 'module_platform_driver' > > 581 | module_platform_driver(mpc52xx_lpbfifo_driver); > > | ^~ > > In file included from > > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/arch/powerpc/include/asm/io.h:27, > > from /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/linux/io.h:25, > > from /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/linux/irq.h:24, > > from > > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/arch/powerpc/include/asm/hardirq.h:5, > > from /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/linux/hardirq.h:8, > > from > > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/linux/interrupt.h:12, > > from > > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/arch/powerpc/platforms/52xx/mpc52xx_lpbfifo.c:12: > > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/arch/powerpc/platforms/52xx/mpc52xx_lpbfifo.c:581:24: > > note: 'cleanup_module' target declared here > > 581 | module_platform_driver(mpc52xx_lpbfifo_driver); > > |^~ > > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/linux/device.h:1356:20: note: in > > definition of macro 'module_driver' > > 1356 | static void __exit __driver##_exit(void) \ > > |^~~~ > > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/arch/powerpc/platforms/52xx/mpc52xx_lpbfifo.c:581:1: > > note: in expansion of macro 'module_platform_driver' > > 581 | module_platform_driver(mpc52xx_lpbfifo_driver); > > | ^~ > > In file included from > >
Re: Linux 4.9.180 build fails with gcc 9 and 'cleanup_module' specifies less restrictive attribute than its target …
On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 03:16:03PM +0200, Rolf Eike Beer wrote: > I have at least these 2 instances: > > > In file included from > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/drm/drm_vma_manager.h:28, > from /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/drm/drmP.h:78, > from > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/drm/drm_modeset_helper.h:26, > from > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/drm/drm_atomic_helper.h:33, > from > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_drv.c:24: > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/linux/module.h:138:7: error: > 'cleanup_module' specifies less restrictive attribute than its target > 'tilcdc_drm_fini': 'cold' [-Werror=missing-attributes] > 138 | void cleanup_module(void) __attribute__((alias(#exitfn))); > | ^~ > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_drv.c:757:1: note: > in expansion of macro 'module_exit' > 757 | module_exit(tilcdc_drm_fini); > | ^~~ > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_drv.c:748:20: note: > 'cleanup_module' target declared here > 748 | static void __exit tilcdc_drm_fini(void) > |^~~ > In file included from > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/drm/drm_vma_manager.h:28, > from /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/drm/drmP.h:78, > from > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/drm/drm_modeset_helper.h:26, > from > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/drm/drm_atomic_helper.h:33, > from > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_drv.c:24: > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/linux/module.h:132:6: error: > 'init_module' specifies less restrictive attribute than its target > 'tilcdc_drm_init': 'cold' [-Werror=missing-attributes] > 132 | int init_module(void) __attribute__((alias(#initfn))); > | ^~~ > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_drv.c:756:1: note: > in expansion of macro 'module_init' > 756 | module_init(tilcdc_drm_init); > | ^~~ > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/drivers/gpu/drm/tilcdc/tilcdc_drv.c:740:19: note: > 'init_module' target declared here > 740 | static int __init tilcdc_drm_init(void) > | ^~~ > > > > In file included from > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/arch/powerpc/platforms/52xx/mpc52xx_lpbfifo.c:17: > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/linux/module.h:138:7: error: > 'cleanup_module' specifies less restrictive attribute than its target > 'mpc52xx_lpbfifo_driver_exit': 'cold' [-Werror=missing-attributes] > 138 | void cleanup_module(void) __attribute__((alias(#exitfn))); > | ^~ > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/linux/device.h:1360:1: note: in expansion > of macro 'module_exit' > 1360 | module_exit(__driver##_exit); > | ^~~ > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/linux/platform_device.h:228:2: note: in > expansion of macro 'module_driver' > 228 | module_driver(__platform_driver, platform_driver_register, \ > | ^ > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/arch/powerpc/platforms/52xx/mpc52xx_lpbfifo.c:581:1: > note: in expansion of macro 'module_platform_driver' > 581 | module_platform_driver(mpc52xx_lpbfifo_driver); > | ^~ > In file included from > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/arch/powerpc/include/asm/io.h:27, > from /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/linux/io.h:25, > from /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/linux/irq.h:24, > from > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/arch/powerpc/include/asm/hardirq.h:5, > from /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/linux/hardirq.h:8, > from > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/linux/interrupt.h:12, > from > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/arch/powerpc/platforms/52xx/mpc52xx_lpbfifo.c:12: > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/arch/powerpc/platforms/52xx/mpc52xx_lpbfifo.c:581:24: > note: 'cleanup_module' target declared here > 581 | module_platform_driver(mpc52xx_lpbfifo_driver); > |^~ > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/linux/device.h:1356:20: note: in > definition of macro 'module_driver' > 1356 | static void __exit __driver##_exit(void) \ > |^~~~ > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/arch/powerpc/platforms/52xx/mpc52xx_lpbfifo.c:581:1: > note: in expansion of macro 'module_platform_driver' > 581 | module_platform_driver(mpc52xx_lpbfifo_driver); > | ^~ > In file included from > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/arch/powerpc/platforms/52xx/mpc52xx_lpbfifo.c:17: > /tmp/e2/build/linux-4.9.180/include/linux/module.h:132:6: error: > 'init_module' specifies less restrictive attribute than its target > 'mpc52xx_lpbfifo_driver_init': 'cold' [-Werror=missing-attributes] >
