Following build warnings / errors noticed on Linux next-20240429 tag on the
arm64, arm and riscv with gcc-8 and gcc-13 builds pass.
Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <[email protected]>
Commit id:
b58a0bc904ff nouveau: add command-line GSP-RM registry support
Buids:
--
gcc-8-arm64-defconfig - Fail
gcc-8-arm-defconfig - Fail
gcc-8-riscv-defconfig - Fail
Build log:
----
drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/gsp/r535.c: In function 'build_registry':
drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/gsp/r535.c:1266:3: error: label at
end of compound statement
default:
^~~~~~~
make[7]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:244:
drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/gsp/r535.o] Error 1
metadata:
git_describe: next-20240429
git_repo: https://gitlab.com/Linaro/lkft/mirrors/next/linux-next
git_short_log: b0a2c79c6f35 ("Add linux-next specific files for 20240429")
arch: arm64, arm, riscv
toolchain: gcc-8
Steps to reproduce:
----
# tuxmake --runtime podman --target-arch arm64 --toolchain gcc-8
--kconfig defconfig
Links:
- https://storage.tuxsuite.com/public/linaro/lkft/builds/2flcoOuqVJfhTvX4AOYsWMd5hqe/
- https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-next-master/build/next-20240429/testrun/23704376/suite/build/test/gcc-8-defconfig/history/
- https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-next-master/build/next-20240429/testrun/23705756/suite/build/test/gcc-8-defconfig/details/
--
Linaro LKFT
https://lkft.linaro.org
On 29.04.24 17:06, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> Following build warnings / errors noticed on Linux next-20240429 tag on the
> arm64, arm and riscv with gcc-8 and gcc-13 builds pass.
>
> Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <[email protected]>
>
> Commit id:
> b58a0bc904ff nouveau: add command-line GSP-RM registry support
>
> Buids:
> --
> gcc-8-arm64-defconfig - Fail
> gcc-8-arm-defconfig - Fail
> gcc-8-riscv-defconfig - Fail
>
> Build log:
> ----
> drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/gsp/r535.c: In function 'build_registry':
> drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/gsp/r535.c:1266:3: error: label at
> end of compound statement
> default:
> ^~~~~~~
> make[7]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:244:
> drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/gsp/r535.o] Error 1
TWIMC, there is another report about this in this thread (sadly some of
its post did not make it to lore):
https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
Ciao, Thorsten
> metadata:
> git_describe: next-20240429
> git_repo: https://gitlab.com/Linaro/lkft/mirrors/next/linux-next
> git_short_log: b0a2c79c6f35 ("Add linux-next specific files for 20240429")
> arch: arm64, arm, riscv
> toolchain: gcc-8
>
> Steps to reproduce:
> ----
> # tuxmake --runtime podman --target-arch arm64 --toolchain gcc-8
> --kconfig defconfig
>
> Links:
> - https://storage.tuxsuite.com/public/linaro/lkft/builds/2flcoOuqVJfhTvX4AOYsWMd5hqe/
> - https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-next-master/build/next-20240429/testrun/23704376/suite/build/test/gcc-8-defconfig/history/
> - https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-next-master/build/next-20240429/testrun/23705756/suite/build/test/gcc-8-defconfig/details/
>
>
> --
> Linaro LKFT
> https://lkft.linaro.org
>
>
On Mon, 2024-04-29 at 17:30 +0200, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten
Leemhuis) wrote:
> TWIMC, there is another report about this in this thread (sadly some of
> its post did not make it to lore):
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
>
> Ciao, Thorsten
This doesn't fail on x86-64 when I build it. I also did a cross-compile to
arm64 with the arm64 defconfig, and it doesn't fail there either.
I'm guessing this is a compiler version thing. I'm using gcc 11.4. Is that
just too old?
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024, at 19:08, Timur Tabi wrote:
> On Mon, 2024-04-29 at 17:30 +0200, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten
> Leemhuis) wrote:
>> TWIMC, there is another report about this in this thread (sadly some of
>> its post did not make it to lore):
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
>>
>> Ciao, Thorsten
>
> This doesn't fail on x86-64 when I build it. I also did a cross-compile to
> arm64 with the arm64 defconfig, and it doesn't fail there either.
>
> I'm guessing this is a compiler version thing. I'm using gcc 11.4. Is that
> just too old?
It's too new: this is valid syntax in c23 and accepted by newer compilers
as an extension to gnu11, but older versions don't like it.
gcc-11 and clang-16 are fine, while gcc-10 and clang-15 as well as
earlier versions produce this warning.
Arnd