Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 07:31:33 -0700 From: Mark Millard <markmi@dsl-only.net> To: Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Eddy_Petri=C8=99or?= <eddy.petrisor@gmail.com>, freebsd-arm <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org>, freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org Subject: Re: lib/clan/llvm.build.mk: Shouldn't BUILD_TRIPLE definition rely host 'cc -dumpmachine'? Message-ID: <7CAFD8CC-BDA1-4E89-BD7E-D0089E27036F@dsl-only.net> In-Reply-To: <CDAA0CB5-F1FC-40FE-AEC5-56FD64654671@FreeBSD.org> References: <CAK0XTWczya8vg_sQZPqz-ZyYZRMq1v6p%2Bjs90S%2BjaDHxo2=1gA@mail.gmail.com> <CDAA0CB5-F1FC-40FE-AEC5-56FD64654671@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2017-Oct-28, at 4:11 AM, Dimitry Andric <dim at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> On 27 Oct 2017, at 08:23, Eddy Petri=C8=99or <eddy.petrisor at =
gmail.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> I am trying to make the FreeBSD code base build from a Linux host and
>> found this bit which defines BUILD_TRIPLE in a way which to my
>> untrained eyes look like overengineering.
>>=20
>> .if ${TARGET_ARCH:Marmv6*} && (!defined(CPUTYPE) || =
${CPUTYPE:M*soft*} =3D=3D "")
>> TARGET_ABI=3D -gnueabihf
>> .elif ${TARGET_ARCH:Marm*}
>> TARGET_ABI=3D -gnueabi
>> .else
>> TARGET_ABI=3D
>> .endif
>> VENDOR=3D unknown
>> OS_VERSION=3D freebsd12.0
>>=20
>> TARGET_TRIPLE?=3D
>> =
${TARGET_ARCH:C/amd64/x86_64/:C/arm64/aarch64/}-${VENDOR}-${OS_VERSION}${T=
ARGET_ABI}
>> BUILD_TRIPLE?=3D
>> =
${BUILD_ARCH:C/amd64/x86_64/:C/arm64/aarch64/}-${VENDOR}-${OS_VERSION}
>=20
> I don't see much overengineering here? :) We simply trust BUILD_ARCH,
> as it is passed in by the top-level Makefile.inc1. This is how most =
of
> these down-level Makefiles work. Running all kinds of commands to
> figure out architectures and the like should be avoided in such
> Makefiles.
>=20
>> To support a Linux host I made these changes that is using 'cc
>> -dumpmachine' to get the correct BUILD_TRIPLE,
>=20
> Unfortunately, this is the wrong option to do so. The gcc manual =
says:
>=20
> -dumpmachine
> Print the compiler=E2=80=99s target machine (for example, =
=E2=80=98i686-pc-linux-gnu=E2=80=99)
> -and don=E2=80=99t do anything else.
Yep --and it is even more complicated: gcc vs.
clang are sometimes different for the target
listed. . .
For example -m32 for amd64 changes the clang
result:
# clang -dumpmachine
x86_64-unknown-freebsd12.0
# clang -dumpmachine -m32
i386-unknown-freebsd12.0
But it does not change the gcc result:
(I happen to have only gcc7 around.)
# gcc7 -dumpmachine -m32
x86_64-portbld-freebsd12.0
# gcc7 -dumpmachine=20
x86_64-portbld-freebsd12.0
(powerpc64 vs. powerpc is the same for
the -m32 handling for -dumpmachine .)
> E.g, it prints the *target* tripe, not the build triple.
My guess is that Eddy was depending on
plain cc being a "self hosting"
(target=3Dbuild) type of compiler command
in his intended environment(s).
Various linux distributions
patch uname and its -p code (for
example). Even for the same kernel
being in use, giving different
textual results. -m seemed more
stable in my limited testing.
Everyplace that uses uname probably
needs to be reviewed for a possible
re-work. BUILD_ARCH and its use is
an example.
>> but I am wondering if
>> it shouldn't be OK for building on a FreeBSD host
>>=20
>> .if ${TARGET_ARCH:Marmv6*} && (!defined(CPUTYPE) || =
${CPUTYPE:M*soft*} =3D=3D "")
>> TARGET_ABI=3D -gnueabihf
>> .elif ${TARGET_ARCH:Marm*}
>> TARGET_ABI=3D -gnueabi
>> .else
>> TARGET_ABI=3D
>> .endif
>> VENDOR=3D unknown
>> OS_VERSION=3D freebsd12.0
>> +BUILD_OS!=3D uname -s
>> +
>=20
> Again, this should be set by the top-level Makefiles, not in this one.
>=20
>>=20
>> TARGET_TRIPLE?=3D
>> =
${TARGET_ARCH:C/amd64/x86_64/:C/arm64/aarch64/}-${VENDOR}-${OS_VERSION}${T=
ARGET_ABI}
>> +.if ${BUILD_OS} =3D=3D FreeBSD
>> BUILD_TRIPLE?=3D
>> =
${BUILD_ARCH:C/amd64/x86_64/:C/arm64/aarch64/}-${VENDOR}-${OS_VERSION}
>> +.else
>> +HOST_CC_DUMPMACHINE!=3D cc -dumpmachine
>> +BUILD_TRIPLE?=3D ${HOST_CC_DUMPMACHINE}
>> +.endif
>>=20
>> What do you think, should the code be instead:
>>=20
>> .if ${TARGET_ARCH:Marmv6*} && (!defined(CPUTYPE) || =
${CPUTYPE:M*soft*} =3D=3D "")
>> TARGET_ABI=3D -gnueabihf
>> .elif ${TARGET_ARCH:Marm*}
>> TARGET_ABI=3D -gnueabi
>> .else
>> TARGET_ABI=3D
>> .endif
>> VENDOR=3D unknown
>> OS_VERSION=3D freebsd12.0
>>=20
>> TARGET_TRIPLE?=3D
>> =
${TARGET_ARCH:C/amd64/x86_64/:C/arm64/aarch64/}-${VENDOR}-${OS_VERSION}${T=
ARGET_ABI}
>> +HOST_CC_DUMPMACHINE!=3D cc -dumpmachine
>> +BUILD_TRIPLE?=3D ${HOST_CC_DUMPMACHINE}
>=20
> No, this is definitely incorrect, as stated above.
It certainly would not be appropriate for
general use on FreeBSD: more of a local
workaround for an odd context, not a
general solution.
=3D=3D=3D
Mark Millard
markmi at dsl-only.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7CAFD8CC-BDA1-4E89-BD7E-D0089E27036F>