* Re: next build: 143 builds: 1 failed, 142 passed, 1 error, 22 warnings (next-20160801) [not found] <579ee2e6.68adc20a.8208b.b5be@mx.google.com> @ 2016-08-01 13:17 ` Arnd Bergmann 2016-08-01 13:36 ` Mark Brown ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Arnd Bergmann @ 2016-08-01 13:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: kernel-build-reports; +Cc: kernelci. org bot, linux-kernel, George Spelvin On Sunday, July 31, 2016 10:49:26 PM CEST kernelci. org bot wrote: > next build: 143 builds: 1 failed, 142 passed, 1 error, 22 warnings (next-20160801) > > Full Build Summary: https://kernelci.org/build/next/kernel/next-20160801/ > > Tree: next > Branch: local/master > Git Describe: next-20160801 > Git Commit: c24c1308a5b274bbd90db927cb18efddc95340c7 > Git URL: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git > Built: 3 unique architectures > > Build Failure Detected: > > arm: gcc version 5.3.1 20160113 (Linaro GCC 5.3-2016.02) > > rpc_defconfig: FAIL I have verified that Linaro GCC 5.3-2016.05 is fixed, only Linaro GCC 5.3-2016.02 and earlier have this problem, please upgrade if possible > Errors and Warnings Detected: > > arm64: gcc version 5.2.1 20151005 (Linaro GCC 5.2-2015.11-2) > > tinyconfig: 2 warnings I now have a patch for it, just need to figure out who will merge it. > > Warnings: > drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_fintek.c:34:0: warning: "IRQ_MODE" redefined As commented in another thread, my patch is waiting to be picked up by Greg, and has been in that state for a while. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > allmodconfig (arm64) — PASS, 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 section mismatches > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > allmodconfig (x86) — PASS, 0 errors, 5 warnings, 0 section mismatches > > Warnings: > lib/test_hash.c:224:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32" is not defined [-Wundef] > lib/test_hash.c:229:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32" is not defined [-Wundef] > lib/test_hash.c:234:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64" is not defined [-Wundef] > lib/test_hash.c:146:2: warning: missing braces around initializer [-Wmissing-braces] > lib/test_hash.c:146:2: warning: (near initialization for 'hash_or[0]') [-Wmissing-braces] Upgrading to gcc-4.9 will fix avoid that, and a couple of workarounds have been discussed before, but I don't know why none of them got merged. George, how about this version: commit 9b3cb7d0777a81522b799b0362ea0864ab7de6e0 Author: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> Date: Tue May 31 10:27:08 2016 +0200 hash: fix gcc-4 build warnings in test_hash.c The newly added lib/test_hash.c file builds fine with gcc-5 or newer, but causes some annoying warnings witih gcc-4.9 and older: lib/test_hash.c: In function ‘test_hash_init’: lib/test_hash.c:146:2: error: missing braces around initializer [-Werror=missing-braces] lib/test_hash.c:146:2: error: (near initialization for ‘hash_or[0]’) [-Werror=missing-braces] lib/test_hash.c:224:7: error: "HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32" is not defined [-Werror=undef] lib/test_hash.c:229:7: error: "HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32" is not defined [-Werror=undef] lib/test_hash.c:234:7: error: "HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64" is not defined [-Werror=undef] This adds the braces and extra #ifdef checks for the macros to shut up those warnings. Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> Cc: George Spelvin <linux@sciencehorizons.net> diff --git a/lib/test_hash.c b/lib/test_hash.c index 66c5fc8351e8..91a1dfa788d7 100644 --- a/lib/test_hash.c +++ b/lib/test_hash.c @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ static int __init test_hash_init(void) { char buf[SIZE+1]; - u32 string_or = 0, hash_or[2][33] = { 0 }; + u32 string_or = 0, hash_or[2][33] = { { 0 } }; unsigned tests = 0; unsigned long long h64 = 0; int i, j; @@ -221,17 +221,17 @@ test_hash_init(void) /* Issue notices about skipped tests. */ #ifndef HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 pr_info("__hash_32() has no arch implementation to test."); -#elif HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 != 1 +#elif defined(HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32) && HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 != 1 pr_info("__hash_32() is arch-specific; not compared to generic."); #endif #ifndef HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32 pr_info("hash_32() has no arch implementation to test."); -#elif HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32 != 1 +#elif defined(HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32) && HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32 != 1 pr_info("hash_32() is arch-specific; not compared to generic."); #endif #ifndef HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64 pr_info("hash_64() has no arch implementation to test."); -#elif HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64 != 1 +#elif defined(HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64) && HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64 != 1 pr_info("hash_64() is arch-specific; not compared to generic."); #endif > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > aspeed_g4_defconfig (arm) — PASS, 0 errors, 1 warning, 0 section mismatches > > Warnings: > arch/arm/configs/aspeed_g4_defconfig:61:warning: symbol value '1' invalid for PRINTK_TIME > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > aspeed_g5_defconfig (arm) — PASS, 0 errors, 1 warning, 0 section mismatches > > Warnings: > arch/arm/configs/aspeed_g5_defconfig:62:warning: symbol value '1' invalid for PRINTK_TIME This was caused by a commit I did to prepare for a patch turning the 'bool' symbol into an integer symbol. That patch is no longer in -next and we should revert my patch. Arnd ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: next build: 143 builds: 1 failed, 142 passed, 1 error, 22 warnings (next-20160801) 2016-08-01 13:17 ` next build: 143 builds: 1 failed, 142 passed, 1 error, 22 warnings (next-20160801) Arnd Bergmann @ 2016-08-01 13:36 ` Mark Brown 2016-08-01 14:57 ` George Spelvin 2016-08-02 18:55 ` Kevin Hilman 2 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Mark Brown @ 2016-08-01 13:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: kernel-build-reports, George Spelvin, linux-kernel, kernelci. org bot, khilman [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 398 bytes --] On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 03:17:42PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Sunday, July 31, 2016 10:49:26 PM CEST kernelci. org bot wrote: > > arm: gcc version 5.3.1 20160113 (Linaro GCC 5.3-2016.02) > > rpc_defconfig: FAIL > I have verified that Linaro GCC 5.3-2016.05 is fixed, only Linaro GCC > 5.3-2016.02 and earlier have this problem, please upgrade if possible Adding Kevin in directly. [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: next build: 143 builds: 1 failed, 142 passed, 1 error, 22 warnings (next-20160801) 2016-08-01 13:17 ` next build: 143 builds: 1 failed, 142 passed, 1 error, 22 warnings (next-20160801) Arnd Bergmann 2016-08-01 13:36 ` Mark Brown @ 2016-08-01 14:57 ` George Spelvin 2016-08-04 13:36 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2016-08-02 18:55 ` Kevin Hilman 2 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: George Spelvin @ 2016-08-01 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: arnd, geert, kernel-build-reports; +Cc: bot, linux-kernel, linux Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: >> Warnings: >> lib/test_hash.c:224:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32" is not defined [-Wundef] >> lib/test_hash.c:229:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32" is not defined [-Wundef] >> lib/test_hash.c:234:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64" is not defined [-Wundef] >> lib/test_hash.c:146:2: warning: missing braces around initializer [-Wmissing-braces] >> lib/test_hash.c:146:2: warning: (near initialization for 'hash_or[0]') [-Wmissing-braces] > Upgrading to gcc-4.9 will fix avoid that, and a couple of workarounds have > been discussed before, but I don't know why none of them got merged. Geert Uytterhoeven was the first to find this problem and propose a patch, which I acked, and thought it was going in via the m68k tree. Helge Deller did the same a couple days later, and I told him not to bother because Geert had taken care of it. Here are the patches: https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=146454366031110 https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=146454366131111 Perhaps there was some confusion about whose version was going in, or via which tree. Maybe I was wrong to assume Geert was putting them in the m68k tree. On Sun, 29 May 2016 19:28:42 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > Some versions of gcc don't like tests for the value of an undefined > preprocessor symbol, even in the #else branch of an #ifndef: > > lib/test_hash.c:224:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32" is not defined [-Wundef] > #elif HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 != 1 > ^ > lib/test_hash.c:229:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32" is not defined [-Wundef] > #elif HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32 != 1 > ^ > lib/test_hash.c:234:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64" is not defined [-Wundef] > #elif HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64 != 1 > ^ > > Seen with gcc 4.9, not seen with 4.1.2. > > Change the logic to only check the value inside an #ifdef to fix this. > > Fixes: 468a9428521e7d00 ("<linux/hash.h>: Add support for architecture-specific functions") > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> > --- > lib/test_hash.c | 24 +++++++++++++++--------- > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/test_hash.c b/lib/test_hash.c > index fd7a677100ebe935..a06ac379ad429c6b 100644 > --- a/lib/test_hash.c > +++ b/lib/test_hash.c > @@ -219,21 +219,27 @@ test_hash_init(void) > } > > /* Issue notices about skipped tests. */ > -#ifndef HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 > - pr_info("__hash_32() has no arch implementation to test."); > -#elif HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 != 1 > +#ifdef HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 > +#if HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32 != 1 > pr_info("__hash_32() is arch-specific; not compared to generic."); > #endif > -#ifndef HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32 > - pr_info("hash_32() has no arch implementation to test."); > -#elif HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32 != 1 > +#else > + pr_info("__hash_32() has no arch implementation to test."); > +#endif > +#ifdef HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32 > +#if HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32 != 1 > pr_info("hash_32() is arch-specific; not compared to generic."); > #endif > -#ifndef HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64 > - pr_info("hash_64() has no arch implementation to test."); > -#elif HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64 != 1 > +#else > + pr_info("hash_32() has no arch implementation to test."); > +#endif > +#ifdef HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64 > +#if HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64 != 1 > pr_info("hash_64() is arch-specific; not compared to generic."); > #endif > +#else > + pr_info("hash_64() has no arch implementation to test."); > +#endif > > pr_notice("%u tests passed.", tests); > > -- > 1.9.1 > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: next build: 143 builds: 1 failed, 142 passed, 1 error, 22 warnings (next-20160801) 2016-08-01 14:57 ` George Spelvin @ 2016-08-04 13:36 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2016-08-04 14:49 ` George Spelvin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2016-08-04 13:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: George Spelvin Cc: Arnd Bergmann, kernel-build-reports, bot, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi George, On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:57 PM, George Spelvin <linux@sciencehorizons.net> wrote: > Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: >>> Warnings: >>> lib/test_hash.c:224:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH__HASH_32" is not defined [-Wundef] >>> lib/test_hash.c:229:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH_HASH_32" is not defined [-Wundef] >>> lib/test_hash.c:234:7: warning: "HAVE_ARCH_HASH_64" is not defined [-Wundef] >>> lib/test_hash.c:146:2: warning: missing braces around initializer [-Wmissing-braces] >>> lib/test_hash.c:146:2: warning: (near initialization for 'hash_or[0]') [-Wmissing-braces] > >> Upgrading to gcc-4.9 will fix avoid that, and a couple of workarounds have >> been discussed before, but I don't know why none of them got merged. > > Geert Uytterhoeven was the first to find this problem and propose a > patch, which I acked, and thought it was going in via the m68k tree. > Helge Deller did the same a couple days later, and I told him not to > bother because Geert had taken care of it. > > Here are the patches: > https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=146454366031110 > https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=146454366131111 > > Perhaps there was some confusion about whose version was going in, or > via which tree. Maybe I was wrong to assume Geert was putting them in > the m68k tree. As these patches were meant for generic non-m68k code, I didn't plan to take them through my tree. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: next build: 143 builds: 1 failed, 142 passed, 1 error, 22 warnings (next-20160801) 2016-08-04 13:36 ` Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2016-08-04 14:49 ` George Spelvin 2016-08-04 14:58 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: George Spelvin @ 2016-08-04 14:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: geert, linux; +Cc: arnd, bot, kernel-build-reports, linux-kernel > As these patches were meant for generic non-m68k code, I didn't plan > to take them through my tree. Well, that explains everything. Sorry for letting it fall through the cracks. I assumed that since you send pull requests to Linus regularly, you'd send it directly. That's why I only acked the patch rather than did anything with it. So, who wants to send it now? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: next build: 143 builds: 1 failed, 142 passed, 1 error, 22 warnings (next-20160801) 2016-08-04 14:49 ` George Spelvin @ 2016-08-04 14:58 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2016-08-04 14:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: George Spelvin Cc: Arnd Bergmann, bot, kernel-build-reports, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Georges, On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 4:49 PM, George Spelvin <linux@sciencehorizons.net> wrote: >> As these patches were meant for generic non-m68k code, I didn't plan >> to take them through my tree. > > Well, that explains everything. Sorry for letting it fall through the > cracks. I assumed that since you send pull requests to Linus regularly, > you'd send it directly. > > That's why I only acked the patch rather than did anything with it. > > So, who wants to send it now? I think you should queue them in your git tree, and send a pull request to Linus, as that's how the original code went upstream. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: next build: 143 builds: 1 failed, 142 passed, 1 error, 22 warnings (next-20160801) 2016-08-01 13:17 ` next build: 143 builds: 1 failed, 142 passed, 1 error, 22 warnings (next-20160801) Arnd Bergmann 2016-08-01 13:36 ` Mark Brown 2016-08-01 14:57 ` George Spelvin @ 2016-08-02 18:55 ` Kevin Hilman 2 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Kevin Hilman @ 2016-08-02 18:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: kernel-build-reports, George Spelvin, linux-kernel, kernelci. org bot Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> writes: > On Sunday, July 31, 2016 10:49:26 PM CEST kernelci. org bot wrote: >> next build: 143 builds: 1 failed, 142 passed, 1 error, 22 warnings (next-20160801) >> >> Full Build Summary: https://kernelci.org/build/next/kernel/next-20160801/ >> >> Tree: next >> Branch: local/master >> Git Describe: next-20160801 >> Git Commit: c24c1308a5b274bbd90db927cb18efddc95340c7 >> Git URL: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git >> Built: 3 unique architectures >> >> Build Failure Detected: >> >> arm: gcc version 5.3.1 20160113 (Linaro GCC 5.3-2016.02) >> >> rpc_defconfig: FAIL > > I have verified that Linaro GCC 5.3-2016.05 is fixed, only Linaro GCC > 5.3-2016.02 and earlier have this problem, please upgrade if possible I don't see this packaged up yet. I'll upgrade as soon as it shows up here: https://releases.linaro.org/components/toolchain/binaries/latest-5/arm-linux-gnueabihf/ Thanks for testing and letting us know, Kevin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-08-04 15:06 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <579ee2e6.68adc20a.8208b.b5be@mx.google.com>
2016-08-01 13:17 ` next build: 143 builds: 1 failed, 142 passed, 1 error, 22 warnings (next-20160801) Arnd Bergmann
2016-08-01 13:36 ` Mark Brown
2016-08-01 14:57 ` George Spelvin
2016-08-04 13:36 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-08-04 14:49 ` George Spelvin
2016-08-04 14:58 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2016-08-02 18:55 ` Kevin Hilman
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox