On 31.08.2024 8:29, Mark Millard wrote:
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.
See
lang/rust/files/armv7/patch-vendor_rustix_src_backend_libc_fs_syscalls.rs
for inspiration. Unfortunately the exact patch depends on the rustx
version, which changes a lot at this place.
Michal
