Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:8c0a:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id go10csp3012380pxb; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 11:19:48 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzr0moWmnNxAJMiXBUdUr7yTYRT1etpYHigaDqMZIjMoE7XhzhS6OaurPARHlGIHKhx7Ein X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:7f8e:: with SMTP id f14mr3859345ejr.198.1611083988508; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 11:19:48 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1611083988; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=moHoqCvPt8ocOr8HduLw4Jv0zffSYRvdx/1GMbzQ1yml6WE3qycV+T9duG3KWhLjoi k7JQsaC1LXz0MBpXB6d6qQJIcuCu8FHqVaAepSeQrqXDP9KWKpB38UsAJfT5GAiB59jg vvmDUVYCbZ2EZpmvHsz//ycA44Z1C+/44KVzN6FOxL9UcRd9zIPy86VMVXQIxzUhixGI kv/OoYNDuOU48dW1rJKcZ50+2srfkwE/09RiW7mhf9qfPu8KHZT1dL1qlFg97WwmTRaX 8SEp8oYh2EjqPAA8rz3WiB4Wq1Hoc0pqiSfLn/tVyoe/NcsEFXlJ6ETKDiru41euIenf U7JQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:dkim-signature:dkim-filter; bh=zI6GU7mXkcWDxGjtKMV8O8z/yEmOhQ9tFNXqxOpXbBs=; b=Yw/UC/IKn5AMxKT9jhixa3Cnu15UUw8jwDfJMUL47G6uneJgX/gaFLj8xjpTsd8GXB jkiIlsAm0jygL8mEU5FPMB/653+C96f4k6IglHpMioxVdseaax68rzHqh5lghc1HIR0B ysbEIlV43NYHhUaN0laefGfOee0ps3+fgStR0aPoniuQMueUyImtA2DRgOzUmCoYPW3F UKLfboXVnIkg4G83EG2I4hs3zYRE5eIHzQ/B4DmjLUlEjKkryvMUCqa8rdfXykXEJvmd ddHdO0CUHqJLFfUFLauuBrTzNEwl9pv7BiJN4gxPqLMC/QJf34QRmdQ6KcSQW4nOJkcf NVVw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@nifty.com header.s=dec2015msa header.b=PDRabLSk; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id b3si9625370edn.283.2021.01.19.11.19.23; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 11:19:48 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@nifty.com header.s=dec2015msa header.b=PDRabLSk; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2404228AbhASTPW (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 19 Jan 2021 14:15:22 -0500 Received: from conssluserg-05.nifty.com ([210.131.2.90]:42334 "EHLO conssluserg-05.nifty.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2391955AbhASTDT (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2021 14:03:19 -0500 Received: from mail-pj1-f48.google.com (mail-pj1-f48.google.com [209.85.216.48]) (authenticated) by conssluserg-05.nifty.com with ESMTP id 10JJ1vNK023366; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 04:01:57 +0900 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 conssluserg-05.nifty.com 10JJ1vNK023366 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nifty.com; s=dec2015msa; t=1611082917; bh=zI6GU7mXkcWDxGjtKMV8O8z/yEmOhQ9tFNXqxOpXbBs=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:From; b=PDRabLSkS9jpbERu9lBeGwslLvIbsqKFP4NvjjApjDiDkovfYJvXuPbWPsAq8zyy9 gLDpMSPItGow2lLB7kV/qGRsQ1Oiu/+LjaDHa5YiwaPw2IYt1NHcnB0FQjC6KBij7P Xx7DonaNydC8iQ4vEpTXovCcXcPTMMBOmV2ALO5f+UOKR358KxV+xEqCraHHB6Ok50 XEZVnEK7OyfeRL/4fDO2GsAsCAXY87jhLKjvoFwLtREwVgX3r6Z5Lk5bJG3l4uB0dS xDaq3pYYNFDBjmk6MtRQ7tRM1Gn9Z/Aij6R++WdMJ5zT/iWsSSBt0sMG9TemsEzv/g Lt/pHbOgUvsuQ== X-Nifty-SrcIP: [209.85.216.48] Received: by mail-pj1-f48.google.com with SMTP id m5so491804pjv.5; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 11:01:57 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531xdmSkOajvjTmZHuTSHy5PxeX/j07Jn3cbkpITNmV/t0Qnp0dY Csu536ijkwfyHNtMh61q7RsJiRfxmbdgD5W6FkM= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:ed93:b029:de:84d2:9ce1 with SMTP id e19-20020a170902ed93b02900de84d29ce1mr6162056plj.47.1611082916634; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 11:01:56 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201203125700.161354-1-masahiroy@kernel.org> <9f959875-1a30-b1a1-b626-3805e24a6df3@samsung.com> <25030057-86b1-5619-25fd-acfa0728b850@samsung.com> <4ab4f62f-8b37-01e1-f81c-270155b13a51@nvidia.com> <7e691a61-bf4b-0594-8d6d-36d62a5def0b@nvidia.com> <95ce88c6-59bd-55b9-9299-51fa20aeb95c@nvidia.com> In-Reply-To: From: Masahiro Yamada Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 04:01:19 +0900 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] gcc-plugins: simplify GCC plugin-dev capability test To: Thierry Reding Cc: Jon Hunter , Linus Torvalds , Marek Szyprowski , Linux Kbuild mailing list , Kees Cook , Emese Revfy , linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, Nathan Chancellor , Nick Desaulniers , clang-built-linux , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-tegra Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:48 AM Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 08:33:37PM +0000, Jon Hunter wrote: > > > > On 18/12/2020 17:54, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 7:33 AM Jon Hunter wrote: > > >> > > >> However, if you are saying that this is a problem/bug with our builders, > > >> then of course we will have to get this fixed. > > > > > > This seems to be a package dependency problem with the gcc plugins - > > > they clearly want libgmp, but apparently the package hasn't specified > > > that dependency. > > > > > > If this turns out to be a big problem, I guess we can't simplify the > > > plugin check after all. > > > > > > We historically just disabled gcc-plugins if that header didn't build, > > > which obviously meant that it "worked" for people, but it also means > > > that clearly the coverage can't have been as good as it could/should > > > be. > > > > > > So if it's as simple as just installing the GNU multiprecision > > > libraries ("gmp-devel" on most rpm-based systems, "libgmp-dev" on most > > > debian systems), then I think that's the right thing to do. You'll get > > > a working build again, and equally importantly, your build servers > > > will actually do a better job of covering the different build options. > > > > > > Thanks. I have reported this issue to the team that administers the > > builders. So hopefully, they will install the necessary packages for us > > now. > > Just to close the loop on this, the builders now have libgmp-dev and > libmpc-dev packages installed and the builds are passing without the > workaround we had used. > > Thierry I was slightly concerned about your question: "In case where CC != HOSTCC, it's possible that CC was not built against the same version of GMP/MPC as HOSTCC. And even HOSTCC might not necessarily have been built against the versions provided by libgmp-dev or libmpc-dev. I'm not overly familiar with GMP/MPC, so perhaps if these headers are reasonably stable, this is not all that important. But if it is, then which version of GMP/MPC do we need? The version that CC was built against, or the version that HOSTCC was built against?" I do not have a good insight about this. I am not sure if it is perfectly OK to use gmp.h from HOSTCC when it was not bundled with CC. The version difference might not be a significant issue, though... -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada