Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v2 10/16] Fix mdadm for powerpc64
On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 21:52 +, McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote: On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote: I can't find a log of this anywhere, it's probably the default compiler warnings for our platform are different? It would be handy to understand them since I dont see gcc differentiating formats between ppc64 and x86_64 which both are 64bit hosts. But obviously there is something missing. I finally got around to rerunning this without my patch and the errors are below. I dug into this a bit. To quote asm/types.h: /* * This is here because we used to use l64 for 64bit powerpc * and we don't want to impact user mode with our change to ll64 * in the kernel. */ #if defined(__powerpc64__) !defined(__KERNEL__) # include asm-generic/int-l64.h #else # include asm-generic/int-ll64.h #endif So ppc64 kernel space uses ll64 and userspace uses l64. This means __u64 is a long for ppc64 but a long long for x86_64. The format errors occurs rightly because a ull is being printed from a ul variable. This will happen to work but its messy. Cheers, Richard ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v2 10/16] Fix mdadm for powerpc64
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 6:34 AM, Richard Purdie richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org wrote: I dug into this a bit. To quote asm/types.h: /* * This is here because we used to use l64 for 64bit powerpc * and we don't want to impact user mode with our change to ll64 * in the kernel. */ #if defined(__powerpc64__) !defined(__KERNEL__) # include asm-generic/int-l64.h #else # include asm-generic/int-ll64.h #endif So ppc64 kernel space uses ll64 and userspace uses l64. This means __u64 is a long for ppc64 but a long long for x86_64. The format errors occurs rightly because a ull is being printed from a ul variable. This will happen to work but its messy. Sorry, I'm missing if you are suggesting a solution here... do I need to take an alternate approach? The alternative is to patch the printfs? -M ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v2 10/16] Fix mdadm for powerpc64
On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 16:53 +, McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote: On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 6:34 AM, Richard Purdie richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org wrote: I dug into this a bit. To quote asm/types.h: /* * This is here because we used to use l64 for 64bit powerpc * and we don't want to impact user mode with our change to ll64 * in the kernel. */ #if defined(__powerpc64__) !defined(__KERNEL__) # include asm-generic/int-l64.h #else # include asm-generic/int-ll64.h #endif So ppc64 kernel space uses ll64 and userspace uses l64. This means __u64 is a long for ppc64 but a long long for x86_64. The format errors occurs rightly because a ull is being printed from a ul variable. This will happen to work but its messy. Sorry, I'm missing if you are suggesting a solution here... do I need to take an alternate approach? The alternative is to patch the printfs? That is the alternative that could probably make it upstream. I did this mainly to understand what the difference between x86_64 and ppc64 was so in future I can better spot problem areas and perhaps others can too. I'll take the patch but I'd like to include more information about the reason for the problem in the commit message and strongly hint that it would be great to get these issues fixed upstream, properly. Cheers, Richard ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v2 10/16] Fix mdadm for powerpc64
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 4:34 AM, Richard Purdie richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org wrote: On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 21:52 +, McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote: On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote: I can't find a log of this anywhere, it's probably the default compiler warnings for our platform are different? It would be handy to understand them since I dont see gcc differentiating formats between ppc64 and x86_64 which both are 64bit hosts. But obviously there is something missing. I finally got around to rerunning this without my patch and the errors are below. I dug into this a bit. To quote asm/types.h: /* * This is here because we used to use l64 for 64bit powerpc * and we don't want to impact user mode with our change to ll64 * in the kernel. */ #if defined(__powerpc64__) !defined(__KERNEL__) # include asm-generic/int-l64.h #else # include asm-generic/int-ll64.h #endif So ppc64 kernel space uses ll64 and userspace uses l64. thanks this is what I was interested in. This means __u64 is a long for ppc64 but a long long for x86_64. The format errors occurs rightly because a ull is being printed from a ul variable. This will happen to work but its messy. havent seen the code but if its printf like then PRIu64 macro could help. Cheers, Richard ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v2 10/16] Fix mdadm for powerpc64
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 4:34 AM, Richard Purdie richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org wrote: On Tue, 2011-10-04 at 21:52 +, McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote: On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote: I can't find a log of this anywhere, it's probably the default compiler warnings for our platform are different? It would be handy to understand them since I dont see gcc differentiating formats between ppc64 and x86_64 which both are 64bit hosts. But obviously there is something missing. I finally got around to rerunning this without my patch and the errors are below. I dug into this a bit. To quote asm/types.h: /* * This is here because we used to use l64 for 64bit powerpc * and we don't want to impact user mode with our change to ll64 * in the kernel. */ #if defined(__powerpc64__) !defined(__KERNEL__) # include asm-generic/int-l64.h #else # include asm-generic/int-ll64.h #endif So ppc64 kernel space uses ll64 and userspace uses l64. thanks this is what I was interested in. This means __u64 is a long for ppc64 but a long long for x86_64. The format errors occurs rightly because a ull is being printed from a ul variable. This will happen to work but its messy. havent seen the code but if its printf like then PRIu64 macro could help. Well there is an upstream fix for this as well... I've learned my lesson now to check upstream repo's.. -M ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v2 10/16] Fix mdadm for powerpc64
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote: I can't find a log of this anywhere, it's probably the default compiler warnings for our platform are different? It would be handy to understand them since I dont see gcc differentiating formats between ppc64 and x86_64 which both are 64bit hosts. But obviously there is something missing. I finally got around to rerunning this without my patch and the errors are below. /.mdadm/failed-slots\ -DUSE_PTHREADS -c -o mdmon.o mdmon.c | powerpc64-fsl-linux-gcc -Wall -Werror -Wstrict-prototypes -Wextra -Wno-unused-parameter -ggdb -DSendmail=\/usr/sbin/sendmail -t\ -DCONFFILE=\/etc/mdadm.conf\ -DCONFFILE2=\/etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf\ -DMAP_DIR=\/dev/.mdadm\ -DMAP_FILE=\map\ -DMDMON_DIR=\/dev/.mdadm\ -DFAILED_SLOTS_DIR=\/dev/.mdadm/failed-slots\ -DUSE_PTHREADS -c -o monitor.o monitor.c | powerpc64-fsl-linux-gcc -Wall -Werror -Wstrict-prototypes -Wextra -Wno-unused-parameter -ggdb -DSendmail=\/usr/sbin/sendmail -t\ -DCONFFILE=\/etc/mdadm.conf\ -DCONFFILE2=\/etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf\ -DMAP_DIR=\/dev/.mdadm\ -DMAP_FILE=\map\ -DMDMON_DIR=\/dev/.mdadm\ -DFAILED_SLOTS_DIR=\/dev/.mdadm/failed-slots\ -DUSE_PTHREADS -c -o managemon.o managemon.c | super-intel.c: In function 'getinfo_super_imsm_volume': | super-intel.c:2327:4: error: format '%llu' expects argument of type 'long long unsigned int', but argument 3 has type '__u64' [-Werror=format] | super-intel.c:2327:4: error: format '%llu' expects argument of type 'long long unsigned int', but argument 4 has type '__u64' [-Werror=format] | cc1: all warnings being treated as errors -M ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v2 10/16] Fix mdadm for powerpc64
On 9/29/2011 11:52 AM, Matthew McClintock wrote:
This fixes build failures from build warnings on powerpc64
Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintockm...@freescale.com
---
meta/recipes-extended/mdadm/mdadm_3.2.2.bb |3 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta/recipes-extended/mdadm/mdadm_3.2.2.bb
b/meta/recipes-extended/mdadm/mdadm_3.2.2.bb
index 5d29ae7..1c83f89 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-extended/mdadm/mdadm_3.2.2.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-extended/mdadm/mdadm_3.2.2.bb
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ LIC_FILES_CHKSUM =
file://COPYING;md5=0636e73ff0215e8d672dc4c32c317bb3 \
file://mdmon.c;beginline=4;endline=18;md5=af7d8444d9c4d3e5c7caac0d9d34039d \
file://mdadm.h;beglinlne=4;endline=22;md5=462bc9936ac0d3da110191a3f9994161
-PR = r0
+PR = r1
SRC_URI = ${KERNELORG_MIRROR}/linux/utils/raid/mdadm/${BPN}-${PV}.tar.bz2
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ SRC_URI[md5sum] = 12ee2fbf3beddb60601fb7a4c4905651
SRC_URI[sha256sum] =
0d1a04e688b082bc88846e3f524abd50bc782b6ffc06123140f7d358c8f9b906
CFLAGS += -fno-strict-aliasing
+EXTRA_OEMAKE_append_powerpc64 = CXFLAGS=-Wno-error=format
inherit autotools
what kind of errors do you get ? and I wonder why they dont show up on
x86_64. It may be something to fix in the madadm code.
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v2 10/16] Fix mdadm for powerpc64
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
-PR = r0
+PR = r1
SRC_URI =
${KERNELORG_MIRROR}/linux/utils/raid/mdadm/${BPN}-${PV}.tar.bz2
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ SRC_URI[md5sum] = 12ee2fbf3beddb60601fb7a4c4905651
SRC_URI[sha256sum] =
0d1a04e688b082bc88846e3f524abd50bc782b6ffc06123140f7d358c8f9b906
CFLAGS += -fno-strict-aliasing
+EXTRA_OEMAKE_append_powerpc64 = CXFLAGS=-Wno-error=format
inherit autotools
what kind of errors do you get ? and I wonder why they dont show up on
x86_64. It may be something to fix in the madadm code.
I can't find a log of this anywhere, it's probably the default
compiler warnings for our platform are different?
You could try enabling those errors and see if your build fails:
EXTRA_OEMAKE_append_x86-64 = CXFLAGS=-Werror=format
-M
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v2 10/16] Fix mdadm for powerpc64
On 10/3/2011 2:14 PM, McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote:
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Khem Rajraj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
-PR = r0
+PR = r1
SRC_URI =
${KERNELORG_MIRROR}/linux/utils/raid/mdadm/${BPN}-${PV}.tar.bz2
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ SRC_URI[md5sum] = 12ee2fbf3beddb60601fb7a4c4905651
SRC_URI[sha256sum] =
0d1a04e688b082bc88846e3f524abd50bc782b6ffc06123140f7d358c8f9b906
CFLAGS += -fno-strict-aliasing
+EXTRA_OEMAKE_append_powerpc64 = CXFLAGS=-Wno-error=format
inherit autotools
what kind of errors do you get ? and I wonder why they dont show up on
x86_64. It may be something to fix in the madadm code.
I can't find a log of this anywhere, it's probably the default
compiler warnings for our platform are different?
It would be handy to understand them since I dont see gcc
differentiating formats between ppc64 and x86_64 which both are 64bit
hosts. But obviously there is something missing.
You could try enabling those errors and see if your build fails:
If I had a ppc64 build around
EXTRA_OEMAKE_append_x86-64 = CXFLAGS=-Werror=format
-M
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v2 10/16] Fix mdadm for powerpc64
On Thu, 2011-09-29 at 13:52 -0500, Matthew McClintock wrote:
This fixes build failures from build warnings on powerpc64
Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock m...@freescale.com
---
meta/recipes-extended/mdadm/mdadm_3.2.2.bb |3 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta/recipes-extended/mdadm/mdadm_3.2.2.bb
b/meta/recipes-extended/mdadm/mdadm_3.2.2.bb
index 5d29ae7..1c83f89 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-extended/mdadm/mdadm_3.2.2.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-extended/mdadm/mdadm_3.2.2.bb
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ LIC_FILES_CHKSUM =
file://COPYING;md5=0636e73ff0215e8d672dc4c32c317bb3 \
file://mdmon.c;beginline=4;endline=18;md5=af7d8444d9c4d3e5c7caac0d9d34039d \
file://mdadm.h;beglinlne=4;endline=22;md5=462bc9936ac0d3da110191a3f9994161
-PR = r0
+PR = r1
SRC_URI = ${KERNELORG_MIRROR}/linux/utils/raid/mdadm/${BPN}-${PV}.tar.bz2
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ SRC_URI[md5sum] = 12ee2fbf3beddb60601fb7a4c4905651
SRC_URI[sha256sum] =
0d1a04e688b082bc88846e3f524abd50bc782b6ffc06123140f7d358c8f9b906
CFLAGS += -fno-strict-aliasing
+EXTRA_OEMAKE_append_powerpc64 = CXFLAGS=-Wno-error=format
That isn't quite what I meant, that also overwrites anything existing in
CXFLAGS just in a different way. Also, I suspect you mean CXXFLAGS?
I'd meant something like:
CXXFLAGS_append_powerpc64 = -Wno-error=format
Cheers,
Richard
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v2 10/16] Fix mdadm for powerpc64
On Fri, 2011-09-30 at 15:51 +, McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote: On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Richard Purdie richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org wrote: That isn't quite what I meant, that also overwrites anything existing in CXFLAGS just in a different way. Also, I suspect you mean CXXFLAGS? I'd meant something like: CXXFLAGS_append_powerpc64 = -Wno-error=format In the mdadm Makefile it gives the following instructions: # define CXFLAGS to give extra flags to CC. # e.g. make CXFLAGS=-O to optimise So I was following that... Ok, normally we'd use CFLAGS for this but people love to be different when writing makefiles :) In that case your patch is fine... Cheers, Richard ___ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
[OE-core] [PATCH v2 10/16] Fix mdadm for powerpc64
This fixes build failures from build warnings on powerpc64
Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock m...@freescale.com
---
meta/recipes-extended/mdadm/mdadm_3.2.2.bb |3 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta/recipes-extended/mdadm/mdadm_3.2.2.bb
b/meta/recipes-extended/mdadm/mdadm_3.2.2.bb
index 5d29ae7..1c83f89 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-extended/mdadm/mdadm_3.2.2.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-extended/mdadm/mdadm_3.2.2.bb
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ LIC_FILES_CHKSUM =
file://COPYING;md5=0636e73ff0215e8d672dc4c32c317bb3 \
file://mdmon.c;beginline=4;endline=18;md5=af7d8444d9c4d3e5c7caac0d9d34039d \
file://mdadm.h;beglinlne=4;endline=22;md5=462bc9936ac0d3da110191a3f9994161
-PR = r0
+PR = r1
SRC_URI = ${KERNELORG_MIRROR}/linux/utils/raid/mdadm/${BPN}-${PV}.tar.bz2
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ SRC_URI[md5sum] = 12ee2fbf3beddb60601fb7a4c4905651
SRC_URI[sha256sum] =
0d1a04e688b082bc88846e3f524abd50bc782b6ffc06123140f7d358c8f9b906
CFLAGS += -fno-strict-aliasing
+EXTRA_OEMAKE_append_powerpc64 = CXFLAGS=-Wno-error=format
inherit autotools
--
1.7.6.1
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
