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 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A88FFC433F5 for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 15:07:54 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=Uii+2c5pZaK5lKgKG6BZ47LCB7nMJ06koFrXCAi87SM=; b=j5ZVVQ53XSQtZZ tNPsP6+MFvCrZtHUtTsdfKL5sSwZXhWru9w9Hs36ZySsQarQRY+MBLPQ3ZuTxWDUUeHdLvRv1UsBQ lC2eEIiEOvb12DNycmGUUP+kVttyD6bW8rUeUZyFOlhMSWz/M4X8tiFUG09EBVmE3JDr2UQobSXJE Ru5ew5WW/kqiIykpjeeu+euGLAbnHXBVSXye1nwc+NDVFai0+7f0l2wIwF8NRxRLwK32jkbtO3UQu RImluuIhEZ/kx4K5Wjt/tcByaaIg/KdNg8JBr//QLKjYXMOs2GcjfVERYoxG+ylVVjpYwPYXIxp9e KUpCTciQvXyNYaNAKCRQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ncqCJ-000A8C-4g; Fri, 08 Apr 2022 15:06:51 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ncqCG-000A78-CQ for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2022 15:06:49 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E2FF113E; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 08:06:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lakrids (usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 698373F73B; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 08:06:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 16:06:39 +0100 From: Mark Rutland To: Will Deacon Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, keescook@chromium.org, ardb@kernel.org, nathan@kernel.org Subject: Re: allmodconfig builds failing to link on arm64 Message-ID: References: <20220408115407.GA27685@willie-the-truck> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20220408_080648_486721_98CAEA1A X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 19.28 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 03:45:42PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 12:54:07PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > Hi folks, > > Hi Will, > > > Since -rc1 (although I haven't tried bisecting the merge window), I'm > > not able to link allmodconfig for arm64: > > > > aarch64-linux-gnu-ld: .init.data has both ordered [`__patchable_function_entries' in init/main.o] and unordered [`.init_array.1' in virt/lib/irqbypass.o] sections > > aarch64-linux-gnu-ld: final link failed: bad value > > make: *** [Makefile:1158: vmlinux] Error 1 > > > > I'm using an Android clang based on 12.0.6 and LD claims to be > > 2.33.1.20191209. > > I can reproduce that when using the llvm.org 12.0.0 binaries along with the > kernel.org crosstool 9.2.0 binaries (binutils 2.32) to build v5.18-rc1 > allmodconfig. > > I see the failure with (at least) the following combinations that I tested: > > * LLVM 11.0.0 && binutils 2.34 (kernel.org 8.4.0 binaries) > * LLVM 12.0.0 && binutils 2.30 (kernel.org 8.1.0 binaries) > * LLVM 12.0.0 && binutils 2.32 (kernel.org 9.2.0 binaries) > * LLVM 12.0.0 && binutils 2.34 (kernel.org 8.4.0/9.3.0 binaries) > * LLVM 13.0.0 && binutils 2.34 (kernel.org 8.4.0 binaries) > * LLVM 14.0.0 && binutils 2.34 (kernel.org 8.4.0 binaries) > > I *DO NOT* see the failure with the following combinations: > > * LLVM 12.0.0 && binutils 2.36.1 (kernel.org 10.3.0/11.1.0 binaries) > * LLVM 13.0.0 && binutils 2.36.1 (kernel.org 10.3.0/11.1.0 binaries) > * LLVM 14.0.0 && binutils 2.36.1 (kernel.org 10.3.0/11.1.0 binaries) > > So clearly something changed on the binutils side between 2.34 and > 2.36.1, but I don't know whether either behaviour is incorrect, or > whether LLVM implicitly depends upon a newer binutils version. > > I don't know why this suddenly became a problem in v5.18-rc1; I'll have > a look. I also see this with earlier kernel versions, including: * v5.15 allmodconfig, LLVM 12.0.0, binutils 2.30 (kernel.org 8.1.0 binaries) * v5.16 allmodconfig, LLVM 12.0.0, binutils 2.30 (kernel.org 8.1.0 binaries) * v5.17 allmodconfig, LLVM 12.0.0, binutils 2.30 (kernel.org 8.1.0 binaries) ... so it doesn't look like this is a (recent) regression. Thanks, Mark. _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel