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.)
> 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).
>
===
Mark Millard
marklmi at yahoo.com
