> On Jul 5, 2016, at 11:52, Dimitry Andric <d...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On 05 Jul 2016, at 18:03, jenkins-ad...@freebsd.org wrote: >> >> FreeBSD_HEAD_amd64_gcc - Build #1340 - Still Failing: >> >> Build information: >> https://jenkins.FreeBSD.org/job/FreeBSD_HEAD_amd64_gcc/1340/ >> Full change log: >> https://jenkins.FreeBSD.org/job/FreeBSD_HEAD_amd64_gcc/1340/changes >> Full build log: >> https://jenkins.FreeBSD.org/job/FreeBSD_HEAD_amd64_gcc/1340/console > ... >> /builds/FreeBSD_HEAD_amd64_gcc/usr.sbin/bhyve/rfb.c: In function >> 'sse42_supported': >> /builds/FreeBSD_HEAD_amd64_gcc/usr.sbin/bhyve/rfb.c:885:17: error: >> 'bit_SSE42' undeclared (first use in this function) >> return ((ecx & bit_SSE42) != 0); >> ^ > > So, this is because clang's and gcc's versions of cpuid.h use slightly > different naming for these bits: > > clang's cpuid.h: > > #define bit_SSE41 0x00080000 > #define bit_SSE42 0x00100000 > > gcc's cpuid.h: > > #define bit_SSE4_1 (1 << 19) > #define bit_SSE4_2 (1 << 20) > > Unfortunately there are more bit defines that differ. No standardization on > this point, it seems. :-/ > > For this specific compile error, we could put in a little crutch like: > > #if defined(bit_SSE4_2) && !defined(bit_SSE42) > #define bit_SSE42 bit_SSE4_2 > #endif > > Thoughts?
Seems ok to me. I was going to submit a patch to fix the other issues with bhyve (because I am getting annoyed by the build failure emails). Thanks, -Ngie
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail