linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH/RFC] Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the luto-misc tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160720025202.GB18962@kernel.org>
Date:	Tue, 19 Jul 2016 23:52:02 -0300
From:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the
 luto-misc tree

Em Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 09:53:33AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell escreveu:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 09:21:57 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 14:45:51 -0300 Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >  #if BITS_PER_LONG != __BITS_PER_LONG
> > > +#include <linux/stringify.h>
> > > +#pragma message "BITS_PER_LONG=" __stringify(BITS_PER_LONG)
> > > +#pragma message "__BITS_PER_LONG=" __stringify(__BITS_PER_LONG)
> > >  #error Inconsistent word size. Check asm/bitsperlong.h
> > >  #endif  

> > I added those three lines to the file (just in yesterday's linux-next
> > was easiest) and got this:

> > /home/sfr/next/next/tools/include/asm-generic/bitsperlong.h:14:9: note: #pragma message: BITS_PER_LONG=(8 * 8)
> >  #pragma message "BITS_PER_LONG=" __stringify(BITS_PER_LONG)

> > /home/sfr/next/next/tools/include/asm-generic/bitsperlong.h:15:9: note: #pragma message: __BITS_PER_LONG=32
> >  #pragma message "__BITS_PER_LONG=" __stringify(__BITS_PER_LONG)

> > (a few times, of course)
 
> So I applied this:
 
> +++ b/tools/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/bitsperlong.h
> @@ -4,6 +4,12 @@
>  #if defined(__x86_64__) && !defined(__ILP32__)
>  # define __BITS_PER_LONG 64
>  #else
> +#ifndef __x86_64__
> +#pragma message "__x86_64__ is not defined"
> +#endif
> +#ifdef __ILP32__
> +#pragma message "__ILP32__ is defined"
> +#endif
>  # define __BITS_PER_LONG 32
>  #endif
 
> and got this:
 
> /home/sfr/next/next/tools/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/bitsperlong.h:8:9: note: #pragma message: __x86_64__ is not defined
>  #pragma message "__x86_64__ is not defined"

Humm, it seems that the compiler used is not the cross one, but the
native, check if, say, __powerpc__ is defined.

- Arnaldo