Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nokia.com designates
 131.228.2.240 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=131.228.2.240; helo=mailrelay.int.nokia.com;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools: Remove conflicting BITS_PER_LONG define
To:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
CC:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
References: <20180912170232.25258-1-alexander.sverdlin@nokia.com>
 <20180912190107.GA5502@redhat.com> <20180912192129.GB13738@kernel.org>
 <562288b4-aac6-182a-6f75-23d32dbdcad5@nokia.com>
 <20180919130318.GB3717@redhat.com>
From:   Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@nokia.com>
Message-ID: <e6be3495-42c8-5da6-520d-1dccefb17406@nokia.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Sep 2018 17:25:11 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180919130318.GB3717@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Sep 2018 15:26:04.6967
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 0c9441c8-fc80-4011-5ada-08d61e4436fd
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 5d471751-9675-428d-917b-70f44f9630b0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=5d471751-9675-428d-917b-70f44f9630b0;Ip=[131.228.2.240];Helo=[mailrelay.int.nokia.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB6PR07MB4198
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi!

On 19/09/2018 15:03, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> That is indeed a cross build environment I'm not regularly testing, I'm
> trying these cross builds:

Probably my assumption was wrong about cross compiler.
HOST tool fails (objtool) and it's being build by separate i686->i686 compiler.

>    9 android-ndk:r12b-arm          : Ok   arm-linux-androideabi-gcc (GCC) 4.9.x 20150123 (prerelease)
>   10 android-ndk:r15c-arm          : Ok   arm-linux-androideabi-gcc (GCC) 4.9.x 20150123 (prerelease)
>   19 debian:experimental-x-arm64   : Ok   aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc (Debian 8.2.0-4) 8.2.0
>   20 debian:experimental-x-mips    : Ok   mips-linux-gnu-gcc (Debian 8.1.0-12) 8.1.0
>   21 debian:experimental-x-mips64  : Ok   mips64-linux-gnuabi64-gcc (Debian 8.1.0-12) 8.1.0
>   22 debian:experimental-x-mipsel  : Ok   mipsel-linux-gnu-gcc (Debian 8.1.0-12) 8.1.0
>   28 fedora:24-x-ARC-uClibc        : Ok   arc-linux-gcc (ARCompact ISA Linux uClibc toolchain 2017.09-rc2) 7.1.1 20170710
>   46 ubuntu:14.04.4-x-linaro-arm64 : Ok   aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc (Linaro GCC 5.5-2017.10) 5.5.0
>   48 ubuntu:16.04-x-arm            : Ok   arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.9) 5.4.0 20160609
>   49 ubuntu:16.04-x-arm64          : Ok   aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.9) 5.4.0 20160609
>   50 ubuntu:16.04-x-powerpc        : Ok   powerpc-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.9) 5.4.0 20160609
>   51 ubuntu:16.04-x-powerpc64      : Ok   powerpc64-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu/IBM 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.9) 5.4.0 20160609
>   52 ubuntu:16.04-x-powerpc64el    : Ok   powerpc64le-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu/IBM 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.9) 5.4.0 20160609
>   53 ubuntu:16.04-x-s390           : Ok   s390x-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.9) 5.4.0 20160609
>   57 ubuntu:18.04-x-arm            : Ok   arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0
>   58 ubuntu:18.04-x-arm64          : Ok   aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0
>   59 ubuntu:18.04-x-m68k           : Ok   m68k-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0
>   60 ubuntu:18.04-x-powerpc        : Ok   powerpc-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0
>   61 ubuntu:18.04-x-powerpc64      : Ok   powerpc64-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0
>   62 ubuntu:18.04-x-powerpc64el    : Ok   powerpc64le-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0
>   63 ubuntu:18.04-x-riscv64        : Ok   riscv64-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0
>   64 ubuntu:18.04-x-s390           : Ok   s390x-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0
>   65 ubuntu:18.04-x-sh4            : Ok   sh4-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0
>   66 ubuntu:18.04-x-sparc64        : Ok   sparc64-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu 7.3.0-16ubuntu3) 7.3.0

I think the big list is mostly irrelevant. I was wondering why only x86 fails from my list of
different targets (ARM, ARM64, MIPS64, x86, x86_64, PPC), but it turns out that objtool is only
built for HAVE_STACK_VALIDATION targets (means, x86 only?).

I've tried to build it for MIPS64 with make tools/objtool and it fails in the same way.

One special thing about my compiler is really old glibc it's being built against
(hello RHEL :) maybe this causes reverse order of includes.

Nevertheless two conflicting defines of BITS_PER_LONG will only work with one particular
order of includes but not opposite. 

> I'll try and get one for building a x86_64 tools/perf,
> tools/lib/{api,bpf,traceevent} to see if I manage to reproduce the
> problem you're reporting.

-- 
Best regards,
Alexander Sverdlin.