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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 9C00FC433E0 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 04:49:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74B5920720 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 04:49:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="aufaQjV4" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728782AbgGFEtN (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jul 2020 00:49:13 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:51134 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726001AbgGFEtM (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jul 2020 00:49:12 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-x144.google.com (mail-lf1-x144.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::144]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E8C3C061794; Sun, 5 Jul 2020 21:49:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x144.google.com with SMTP id k15so21799569lfc.4; Sun, 05 Jul 2020 21:49:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=LlRkNitp+HR82fwyqhAOC5T4sKDfW6mx6YbCDa9qCYE=; b=aufaQjV4h3qnwZ+7EL6rWz2Dhq/HR9mgTN9sQ5qKsfkiKr9+Zy+8TOkf9sqLd0vxVy WTTA/IueiLWDyKzx8AD32SCZ6dwIw8vmhW7d6YSDwBgOr7lR7tD0L9nR8FHRuyIrWvUN UEoNrYJHeRI7AqyKhFF6sXMu0cGtD/Q84/gOv1+fsBnjknJf2tJBPqwDxZuU7EQykMVm 3Lrg49gUwYBHNR3Cuk3hZsGy3g6LuNhPs9m6llF1s9m6SLHM959JanUY+JGLcDUvqRsQ tqEHOr+oPmOo6tmYqAfHuaDPVNx2XFbdX25YFG3V0BzMcHgm/+Sc6qt5kQN3TEfPsf31 ftvQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=LlRkNitp+HR82fwyqhAOC5T4sKDfW6mx6YbCDa9qCYE=; b=NHDeRWDn7aYkQ8AJr3fdx0KhAZKd+dd7jjFVtXSMqX3oUDCTSgQI/8belUT4HKQYez A5FOvhTHAXl3P8qm7ehX9xld/stV8kAMXc844KY6OcOi8vFDvimPcKhtSYJCSgMVWB2S 25Y/IvAqJW3aQgmB2R/qHsMFoOuHEdLfGNrqU1T36/ERMWetDbBpqLwdwraA5hNHNI+f /wYalxa8C8vavoWYjqYiUlfP7O1dDHHD7N/6aFm/t4lwBOWz7j7aAR3q/O6/ZsSLSdFH JmxgdWs4xuOOzH52dG24cvDW3qMPRopYMCPY4hPOx2Ed59uIbUm5nZVkvjgs+joyTNng K32g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530DBS6bVEuEPDQGN+BlA1v7nnDZ/22Yysa0qOginyoZ8PLc1imO aI1eb65y06Zvs3ep4n9kfsUpkVxYCtJd1Ggn8P4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyF68jwLrGVh/Y8r4x+Y0KdP1oc5lZnzM1F6z+txlo8c2JMfzJ0PSnAMY2TKFJDWhUpW/Cig4+g9LnOpOaQ9Vw= X-Received: by 2002:a19:c389:: with SMTP id t131mr15690870lff.130.1594010949775; Sun, 05 Jul 2020 21:49:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200629085911.1676554-1-masahiroy@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: From: Miguel Ojeda Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 06:48:58 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] kbuild: make Clang build userprogs for target architecture To: Masahiro Yamada Cc: Nick Desaulniers , Linux Kbuild mailing list , LKML , Michal Marek , Sam Ravnborg , clang-built-linux Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Masahiro, On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 5:30 PM Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > Hmm, adding '#include ' did not make any difference. That should have worked, because POSIX defines it to be there. It sounds like you need --sysroot to point it to the proper ones. > If I add -std=c99, I get a different error. Yeah, that is the expected behavior. C99 does not have the implicit int rule anymore (unlike older C) so ssize_t (an unknown type given that program) is not being interpreted as int anymore (which is what triggers the warning later about the mismatch between size_t and int in the format string). > In contrast, 'size_t' has no problem. That is expected too, because size_t is defined via stdio.h (size_t is a C standard type, ssize_t is not -- it is a POSIX one). Hope that helps, Cheers, Miguel