From: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> To: Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: Linux 6.3-rc3 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2023 08:11:50 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20230324151150.GC428955@dev-arch.thelio-3990X> (raw) In-Reply-To: <87wn36ctdi.fsf@kernel.org> On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 12:54:01PM +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: > Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> writes: > > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 02:44:47PM +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: > >> Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> writes: > >> > >> > Perhaps these would make doing allmodconfig builds with clang more > >> > frequently less painful for you? > >> > > >> > https://lore.kernel.org/llvm/20230319235619.GA18547@dev-arch.thelio-3990X/ > >> > >> Thank you, at least for me this is really helpful. > > > > Really glad to hear! I hope this helps make testing and verifying > > changes with clang and LLVM easier for developers and maintainers. > > It really does. And I hope you are able to update these packages in > future as well so that it would be easy to get the latest clang. That is the current plan (I will push 16.0.1, 16.0.2, etc. as they are released), I have a relatively automated process for this going forward. > >> I tried now clang for the first time but seeing a strange problem. > >> > >> I prefer to define the compiler in GNUmakefile so it's easy to change > >> compilers and I don't need to remember the exact command line. So I have > >> this in the top level GNUmakefile (all the rest commented out): > >> > >> LLVM=/opt/clang/llvm-16.0.0/bin/ > >> > >> If I run 'make oldconfig' it seems to use clang but after I run just > >> 'make' it seems to switch back to the host GCC compiler and ask for GCC > >> specific config questions again. Workaround for this seems to be adding > >> 'export LLVM' to GNUmakefile, after that also 'make' uses clang as > >> expected. > > > > Interesting... I just tested with a basic GNUmakefile and everything > > seems to work fine without an export. At the same time, the export > > should not hurt anything, so as long as it works, that is what matters. > > Sure, once I figured out the quirks I can workaround them. I was just > hoping that other users would not have to go through the same hassle as > I did :) > > > If you have any further issues, please do not hesitate to reach out! > > This is nitpicking but it would be nice if the tarball contents wouldn't > conflict with each other. Now both llvm-16.0.0-aarch64.tar.gz and > llvm-16.0.0-x86_64.tar extract to the same directory llvm-16.0.0 with > same binary names. It would be much better if they would extract to > llvm-16.0.0-aarch64 and llvm-16.0.0-x86_64, respectively. > > For example, Arnd's crosstool packages don't conflict with each other: > > https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/ I could certainly do that but what is the use case for extracting both? You cannot run the aarch64 version on an x86_64 host and vice versa, so why bother extracting them? I had figured the architecture would be irrelevant once installed on the host, so I opted only to include it in the tarball name. Perhaps I should make it clearer that these are the host architectures, not the target architectures (because clang is multi-targeted, unlike GCC)? > And maybe request a similar llvm directory under pub/tools to make it > more official? :) Yes, I was talking that over with Nick recently, as having it under a group on kernel.org would make taking over maintainership easier should something happen to me :) Thanks for all the feedback so far, it is much appreciated! Cheers, Nathan
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> To: Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, llvm@lists.linux.dev, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux 6.3-rc3 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2023 08:11:50 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20230324151150.GC428955@dev-arch.thelio-3990X> (raw) In-Reply-To: <87wn36ctdi.fsf@kernel.org> On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 12:54:01PM +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: > Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> writes: > > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 02:44:47PM +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: > >> Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> writes: > >> > >> > Perhaps these would make doing allmodconfig builds with clang more > >> > frequently less painful for you? > >> > > >> > https://lore.kernel.org/llvm/20230319235619.GA18547@dev-arch.thelio-3990X/ > >> > >> Thank you, at least for me this is really helpful. > > > > Really glad to hear! I hope this helps make testing and verifying > > changes with clang and LLVM easier for developers and maintainers. > > It really does. And I hope you are able to update these packages in > future as well so that it would be easy to get the latest clang. That is the current plan (I will push 16.0.1, 16.0.2, etc. as they are released), I have a relatively automated process for this going forward. > >> I tried now clang for the first time but seeing a strange problem. > >> > >> I prefer to define the compiler in GNUmakefile so it's easy to change > >> compilers and I don't need to remember the exact command line. So I have > >> this in the top level GNUmakefile (all the rest commented out): > >> > >> LLVM=/opt/clang/llvm-16.0.0/bin/ > >> > >> If I run 'make oldconfig' it seems to use clang but after I run just > >> 'make' it seems to switch back to the host GCC compiler and ask for GCC > >> specific config questions again. Workaround for this seems to be adding > >> 'export LLVM' to GNUmakefile, after that also 'make' uses clang as > >> expected. > > > > Interesting... I just tested with a basic GNUmakefile and everything > > seems to work fine without an export. At the same time, the export > > should not hurt anything, so as long as it works, that is what matters. > > Sure, once I figured out the quirks I can workaround them. I was just > hoping that other users would not have to go through the same hassle as > I did :) > > > If you have any further issues, please do not hesitate to reach out! > > This is nitpicking but it would be nice if the tarball contents wouldn't > conflict with each other. Now both llvm-16.0.0-aarch64.tar.gz and > llvm-16.0.0-x86_64.tar extract to the same directory llvm-16.0.0 with > same binary names. It would be much better if they would extract to > llvm-16.0.0-aarch64 and llvm-16.0.0-x86_64, respectively. > > For example, Arnd's crosstool packages don't conflict with each other: > > https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/ I could certainly do that but what is the use case for extracting both? You cannot run the aarch64 version on an x86_64 host and vice versa, so why bother extracting them? I had figured the architecture would be irrelevant once installed on the host, so I opted only to include it in the tarball name. Perhaps I should make it clearer that these are the host architectures, not the target architectures (because clang is multi-targeted, unlike GCC)? > And maybe request a similar llvm directory under pub/tools to make it > more official? :) Yes, I was talking that over with Nick recently, as having it under a group on kernel.org would make taking over maintainership easier should something happen to me :) Thanks for all the feedback so far, it is much appreciated! Cheers, Nathan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-24 15:11 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 65+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2023-03-19 20:50 Linux 6.3-rc3 Linus Torvalds 2023-03-20 8:21 ` Build regressions/improvements in v6.3-rc3 Geert Uytterhoeven 2023-03-21 5:38 ` Build regressions/improvements in v6.3-rc3 (drm/msm/) Randy Dunlap 2023-03-21 5:38 ` Randy Dunlap 2023-03-21 7:34 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2023-03-21 7:34 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2023-03-21 15:10 ` Randy Dunlap 2023-03-21 15:10 ` Randy Dunlap 2023-03-21 15:33 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2023-03-21 15:33 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2023-03-20 18:05 ` Linux 6.3-rc3 Nathan Chancellor 2023-03-20 18:05 ` Nathan Chancellor 2023-03-20 18:26 ` Linus Torvalds 2023-03-20 18:26 ` Linus Torvalds 2023-03-20 18:49 ` Linus Torvalds 2023-03-20 18:49 ` Linus Torvalds 2023-03-20 18:56 ` Nathan Chancellor 2023-03-20 18:56 ` Nathan Chancellor 2023-03-20 19:05 ` Linus Torvalds 2023-03-20 19:05 ` Linus Torvalds 2023-03-20 18:53 ` Nathan Chancellor 2023-03-20 18:53 ` Nathan Chancellor 2023-03-20 19:22 ` Nathan Chancellor 2023-03-20 19:22 ` Nathan Chancellor 2023-03-22 12:44 ` Kalle Valo 2023-03-22 12:44 ` Kalle Valo 2023-03-22 16:36 ` Nathan Chancellor 2023-03-22 16:36 ` Nathan Chancellor 2023-03-22 20:36 ` Nathan Chancellor 2023-03-22 20:36 ` Nathan Chancellor 2023-03-24 10:54 ` Kalle Valo 2023-03-24 10:54 ` Kalle Valo 2023-03-24 15:11 ` Nathan Chancellor [this message] 2023-03-24 15:11 ` Nathan Chancellor 2023-03-24 15:23 ` Kalle Valo 2023-03-24 15:23 ` Kalle Valo 2023-03-28 19:07 ` Nathan Chancellor 2023-03-28 19:07 ` Nathan Chancellor 2023-03-29 8:39 ` Kalle Valo 2023-03-29 8:39 ` Kalle Valo 2023-03-22 16:40 ` Sedat Dilek 2023-03-22 16:40 ` Sedat Dilek 2023-03-22 16:55 ` Linus Torvalds 2023-03-22 16:55 ` Linus Torvalds 2023-03-22 18:17 ` Nick Desaulniers 2023-03-22 18:17 ` Nick Desaulniers 2023-03-24 17:16 ` Masahiro Yamada 2023-03-24 17:16 ` Masahiro Yamada 2023-03-27 16:12 ` Jani Nikula 2023-03-27 16:12 ` Jani Nikula 2023-03-27 17:03 ` Kalle Valo 2023-03-27 17:03 ` Kalle Valo 2023-03-20 20:04 ` Guenter Roeck 2023-03-20 20:04 ` Guenter Roeck 2023-03-20 20:30 ` Linus Torvalds 2023-03-20 20:30 ` Linus Torvalds 2023-03-20 22:06 ` Nathan Chancellor 2023-03-20 22:06 ` Nathan Chancellor 2023-03-20 22:48 ` Segher Boessenkool 2023-03-20 22:48 ` Segher Boessenkool 2023-03-20 23:41 ` Linus Torvalds 2023-03-20 23:41 ` Linus Torvalds 2023-03-24 9:41 ` Daniel Vetter 2023-03-24 9:41 ` Daniel Vetter 2023-03-20 20:07 ` Guenter Roeck
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20230324151150.GC428955@dev-arch.thelio-3990X \ --to=nathan@kernel.org \ --cc=airlied@gmail.com \ --cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \ --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \ --cc=kvalo@kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \ --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.