From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF043C43603 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 19:37:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0E31224F8 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 19:37:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="I8zFfNdC" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B0E31224F8 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:60238 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1icww4-0000QL-Q8 for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 14:37:12 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47749) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1icwua-00081Y-CD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 14:35:42 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1icwuW-00047q-Iu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 14:35:38 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com ([207.211.31.81]:33712 helo=us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1icwuW-00042k-3z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 14:35:36 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1575574535; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ziKMsKyrgcNQ+OLUKmAQ8ExJ9n41YFQoxmoGyZPv+10=; b=I8zFfNdCgkE8g6DbTlV7J88FWB7QeJyVMafoApccgn2LwX/y12HLFE7l7yAtw9M65XtaV+ FGcpp1E8kUSqKGgArYY7eNhDVhgBIqAqT1pZoestYQopYcXwZsbOKfPKdlZLRmQed1kcwK r6c3h0NHdR35xyurJXYR6gDgM77eUxc= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-159-gePPbhbLOFO_9n7tg5--5w-1; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 14:35:33 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A644E1883523; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 19:35:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-116-62.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.62]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C84E84946; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 19:35:28 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH-for-5.0] roms/edk2-funcs.sh: Use available GCC for ARM/Aarch64 targets To: Ard Biesheuvel , =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu-Daud=c3=a9?= References: <20191204221229.30612-1-philmd@redhat.com> <90b6b303-2cb7-aeea-8f10-8520de2511c6@redhat.com> From: Laszlo Ersek Message-ID: <83c551c4-bec0-1a42-4605-d32f6430697e@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 20:35:28 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 X-MC-Unique: gePPbhbLOFO_9n7tg5--5w-1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 207.211.31.81 X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: QEMU Developers Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On 12/05/19 17:50, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 16:27, Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 wrote: >> >> On 12/5/19 5:13 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >>> Hi Phil, >>> >>> (+Ard) >>> >>> On 12/04/19 23:12, Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 wrote: >>>> Centos 7.7 only provides cross GCC 4.8.5, but the script forces >>>> us to use GCC5. Since the same machinery is valid to check the >>>> GCC version, remove the $emulation_target check. >>>> >>>> $ cat /etc/redhat-release >>>> CentOS Linux release 7.7.1908 (Core) >>>> >>>> $ aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc -v 2>&1 | tail -1 >>>> gcc version 4.8.5 20150623 (Red Hat 4.8.5-16) (GCC) >>> >>> this patch is not correct, in my opinion. ARM / AARCH64 support in edk2 >>> requires GCC5 as a minimum. It was never tested with an earlier >>> toolchain, to my understanding. Not on my part, anyway. >>> >>> To be more precise: when I tested cross-gcc toolchains earlier than >>> that, the ArmVirtQemu builds always failed. Minimally, those toolchains >>> didn't recognize some of the AARCH64 system registers. >>> >>> If CentOS 7.7 does not provide a suitable (>=3DGCC5) toolchain, then we >>> can't build ArmVirtQemu binaries on CentOS 7.7, in my opinion. >>> >>> Personally, on my RHEL7 laptop, over time I've used the following >>> toolchains, to satisfy the GCC5 requirement of ArmVirtQemu (which >>> requirement I took as experimental evidence): >>> >>> - Initially (last quarter of 2014), I used binary distributions -- >>> tarballs -- of cross-binutils and cross-gcc, from Linaro. >>> >>> - Later (last quarter of 2016), I rebuilt some SRPMs that were at the >>> time Fedora-only for RHEL7. Namely: >>> >>> - cross-binutils-2.27-3.fc24 >>> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=3D801348 >>> >>> - gcc-6.1.1-2.fc24 >>> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=3D761767 >>> >>> - Most recently, I've been using cross-binutils updated from EPEL7: >>> >>> - cross-binutils-2.27-9.el7.1 >>> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=3D918474 >>> >>> To my knowledge, there is still no suitable cross-compiler available on >>> RHEL7, from any trustworthy RPM repository. So, to this day, I use >>> gcc-6.1.1-2 for cross-building ArmVirtQemu, on my RHEL7 laptop. >>> >>> Again: I believe it does not matter if the gcc-4.8.5-based >>> cross-compiler in CentOS 7 "happens" to work. That's a compiler that I >>> have never tested with, or vetted for, upstream ArmVirtQemu. >>> >>> Now, I realize that in edk2, we have stuff like >>> >>> GCC48_AARCH64_CC_FLAGS >>> >>> in "BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template" -- coming from commit >>> 7a9dbf2c94d1 ("BaseTools/Conf/tools_def.template: drop ARM/AARCH suppor= t >>> from GCC46/GCC47", 2019-01-08). That doesn't change the fact that I've >>> never built or tested ArmVirtQemu with such a compiler. And so this >>> patch makes me quite uncomfortable. >>> >>> If that rules out CentOS 7 as a QEMU project build / CI platform for th= e >>> bundled ArmVirtQemu binaries, then we need a more recent platform >>> (perhaps CentOS 8, not sure). >> >> Unfortunately CentOS 8 is not available as a Docker image, which is a >> convenient way to build EDK2 in a CI. >> >>> I think it's also educational to check the origin of the code that your >>> patch proposes to remove. Most recently it was moved around from a >>> different place, in QEMU commit 65a109ab4b1a ('roms: lift >>> "edk2-funcs.sh" from "tests/uefi-test-tools/build.sh"', 2019-04-17). >>> >>> In that commit, for some reason I didn't keep the original code comment= s >>> (perhaps it would have been too difficult or messy to preserve the >>> comments sanely with the restructured / factored-out code). But, they >>> went like this (originally from commit 77db55fc8155, >>> "tests/uefi-test-tools: add build scripts", 2019-02-21): >>> >>> # Expose cross_prefix (which is possibly empty) to the edk2 tools. Whil= e at it, >>> # determine the suitable edk2 toolchain as well. >>> # - For ARM and AARCH64, edk2 only offers the GCC5 toolchain tag, which= covers >>> # the gcc-5+ releases. >>> # - For IA32 and X64, edk2 offers the GCC44 through GCC49 toolchain tag= s, in >>> # addition to GCC5. Unfortunately, the mapping between the toolchain = tags and >>> # the actual gcc releases isn't entirely trivial. Run "git-blame" on >>> # "OvmfPkg/build.sh" in edk2 for more information. >>> # And, because the above is too simple, we have to assign cross_prefix = to an >>> # edk2 build variable that is specific to both the toolchain tag and th= e target >>> # architecture. >>> >>> So... unless Ard feels it is really totally safe to retro-actively rely >>> on the gcc-4.8.5-based compiler in CentOS 7, I'd rather we picked a mor= e >>> recent build platform (OS) instead. For example, we build ArmVirtQemu o= n >>> RHEL8 regularly, so that's a reality-based "plus" for CentOS 8. >>> >>> >>> Independently of all of the above, the OVMF toolchain selection logic >>> that this patch proposes to reuse with ArmVirtQemu, is *really* >>> x86-specific. Please run "git blame" on "OvmfPkg/build.sh" in upstream >>> edk2, to see where the various branches come from (as the comments in >>> this shell script suggest as well). There had been mess like commit >>> 656ac0c7d8ea ('Revert "OvmfPkg/build.sh: select the GCC49 toolchain >>> settings for gcc-7.*"', 2017-08-25). >> >> Thanks for all the pointers, very educative indeed :) >> >> I'll see other setups I can use with GCC5+ available. >> >> I still have to figure if there are free tier CI with less limitations >> than Travis/Shippable/GitLab, so we can keep the full EDK2 build output = log. >> >=20 > My CI job for ArmVirtQemu/EDK2 build tested GCC48 and GCC49 until very > recently, and I never experienced any issues when running those > images, although it's been much longer that I actually tried that. So > I wouldn't recommend against it, and if we do identify any issues, we > should either deprecate GCC48 (for ArmVirtQemu or for AArch64 > altogether) or fix them. >=20 OK, thank you, I'm fully satisfied with this addition. :) Phil, in this case I think we can indeed replace the hard-coded "GCC5" with a bit of dynamic detection. Two remarks: - Please CC Ard on v2, so he can ACK. I'd like that. :) - Again, we shouldn't blindly reapply the x86 (OVMF) quirk(s). I mean mainly the special casing of "6.[0-2].*" to GCC49, which comes from upstream edk2 commit 432f1d83f77a ("OvmfPkg/build.sh: Use GCC49 toolchains with GCC 6.[0-2]", 2016-12-06). ... or is that GCC bug target-independent in fact? I can't really tell; the upstream GCC bug is ISA-specific (x86-64), and so are function calling conventions. I'd suggest *not* applying the quirk for ArmVirtQemu, initially. Thanks Laszlo