Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1427962

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 21

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:26:19AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 6/21/2016 10:14 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 04:04:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>>I'm not sure who builds the toolchains, but tilepro is in upstream gcc/binutils/etc
> >>>so should be easy enough to include.  There's also a cross-toolchain for x64 I put
> >>>up a while ago [1] that you could grab if you wanted to try it.
> >>I usually build my own set -- and just did. But tilepro was not
> >>included. Lemme go do so.
> >binutils-2_26-branch builds for tilepro-linux
> >gcc-6-branch does _not_ build for tilepro-linux
> 
> I figured I would take a stab at diagnosing this myself, and it looks like the
> toolchain build assumes that the kernel headers have already been installed
> and therefore we have <asm/unistd.h> available.  This actually seems like
> a reasonable prerequisite for building the toolchain.  I'm guessing you
> don't?  Should you?  Or perhaps the compiler shouldn't make that assumption?

I can build:

ls -la /opt/cross/bin/*-gcc | wc -l
27

compilers without installing kernel headers.

> This has been true since gcc 4.x when tilepro support was first added.
> 
> In any case if you replace the #include <asm/unistd.h> with
> 
> #define __NR_FAST_cmpxchg    -1
> #define __NR_FAST_atomic_update    -2
> #define __NR_FAST_cmpxchg64    -3
> 
> that should also probably fix it, though I haven't tested it.  It probably
> wouldn't be crazy to just put those #defines directly in tilepro's atomic.h,
> since it's not like those fast system call numbers will ever change.

OK, I'll go test that right after I've got the kid in bed .. I'll let
you know.

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

linux-next: Tree for Jun 21 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2016-06-21 07:50 +0200
  Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 21 Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 09:10 +0200
    Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 21 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-06-21 10:50 +0200
      Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 21 Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 11:00 +0200
    Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 21 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-06-21 14:50 +0200
      Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 21 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-06-21 16:20 +0200
        Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 21 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-06-21 16:30 +0200
        Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 21 Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 16:40 +0200
        Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 21 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-06-21 19:10 +0200
          Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 21 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-06-21 19:40 +0200
            Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 21 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-06-21 20:30 +0200
              Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 21 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-06-21 21:10 +0200
              Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 21 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-06-21 22:50 +0200
                Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 21 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2016-06-21 23:30 +0200
                Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 21 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-06-22 23:10 +0200
              Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 21 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-06-22 11:20 +0200
      Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 21 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-06-21 16:30 +0200

csiph-web