Re: [tip:x86/vdso] x86, vdso: Reimplement vdso.so preparation in build-time C

[Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>]

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:43 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> On 05/29/2014 12:32 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Paul Gortmaker
>> <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 6:25 PM, tip-bot for Andy Lutomirski
>>> <tipbot@zytor.com> wrote:
>>>> Commit-ID:  6f121e548f83674ab4920a4e60afb58d4f61b829
>>>> Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/tip/6f121e548f83674ab4920a4e60afb58d4f61b829
>>>> Author:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
>>>> AuthorDate: Mon, 5 May 2014 12:19:34 -0700
>>>> Committer:  H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
>>>> CommitDate: Mon, 5 May 2014 13:18:51 -0700
>>>>
>>>> x86, vdso: Reimplement vdso.so preparation in build-time C
>>>
>>> Just a heads up in case it hasn't been mentioned already;
>>> the x86 builds in linux-next which IIRC are done as cross
>>> compile on a powerpc box are failing as follows:
>>>
>>>   VDSO2C  arch/x86/vdso/vdso-image-64.c
>>> /bin/sh: line 1: 15995 Segmentation fault      arch/x86/vdso/vdso2c
>>> arch/x86/vdso/vdso64.so.dbg arch/x86/vdso/vdso-image-64.c
>>> make[3]: *** [arch/x86/vdso/vdso-image-64.c] Error 139
>>>
>>> http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/buildresult/11265454/
>>>
>>
>> Egads.  This wouldn't be a big-endian host by any chance?
>>
>
> He said PowerPC; most but not all PowerPC systems are bigendian.  Seems
> like a fair assumption to make.
>

I suppose I shouldn't have assumed that code in arch/x86 would always
run on little-endian machines.  I'll fix it.

--Andy