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,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 11333C43603 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 16:52:41 +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 86CF621835 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 16:52:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="wYPEWlMQ" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 86CF621835 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linaro.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:57524 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1icuMo-0004tK-Ts for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 11:52:38 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58260) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1icuKQ-0003K0-PK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 11:50:13 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1icuKN-0005im-Vx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 11:50:10 -0500 Received: from mail-wr1-x444.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::444]:33479) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1icuKN-0005e9-Lj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 11:50:07 -0500 Received: by mail-wr1-x444.google.com with SMTP id b6so4503782wrq.0 for ; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 08:50:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pIYiZe3xTXQGCytMgauABRVzXtBiSOUwdK9yjvTV4JQ=; b=wYPEWlMQfTjd9RovCk2ixGa09GRZfrgU5CasBMcZw3oRD6cXu6e+9mMu0j96rHvwfG AmNvPXUNFKWtIfd41z4LHb3ScI36awSvVfLXbJlkuuYjAdNhvZWMV6DzZW9+YTf7JCgW cewf78CGTDlbomUStaYSj8JNCzEvDiPZ/L7paptx6nTh2P3iKqWeGvMgoo5nr4iU4X1R MImCm6JER43Z0kcX1w+qnAD2teh2p5Qk8QK9IfxfgIkI0/PDCBlpyjfSVh2DYITs/tOK f99d7R1wAwpVSuhGe52Sj2UeRZ5nH5HhIuR5ak9+MvOCxjFCFEEpJ12wk+8XPn0lVyl6 RBRQ== 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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pIYiZe3xTXQGCytMgauABRVzXtBiSOUwdK9yjvTV4JQ=; b=Nm1L+Yg6r5CGkPh4OihGvMIlGdwUWU0M3JyCvfyQbjgU8UHCIm1rqCnSV+j+pE1trI nJCSlnP1ngnxWdGsy3vSK6Kz9uli1Mquj8U2wYVDlC5UZPvRI9gh3UNt0SlI+4xRzJHo NQnVp7XbhgEK/NIVEy7ikhE/RfQ+s0YAvotpSgs96r2rJ4bmv65K1ULiosQL+aRLLk6e mPqtAXz6CVkMTgy2D8mmAyvkkY9HcqOOHRfiw2jugFf45psd0vNQCof6TqC8j5jKp1Ji gaUgA4kq4J9hbFmWC60Gl0ZR55e+RoOv28cFBtS6s5Za+Txtiuxh9RHCrPeT6vqlC+lG jQTg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUwjGWU3Gn5tUkxmM+MYc/MT+iFgwXh1gG51lCIPvEwfU25SfEl InwC1BzaVSDXseRPfNJdzZc3nkO5wYg+ccqrgjvFDg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy8qt/LPQTBDnkSXse5PQUi8TmRUxjinXgJwHHvpgXHaFXX7lPXMif76IbzpyywHreBlwXK1DzHDDRdSp8gaak= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:43c7:: with SMTP id v7mr10567139wrr.32.1575564605540; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 08:50:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191204221229.30612-1-philmd@redhat.com> <90b6b303-2cb7-aeea-8f10-8520de2511c6@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <90b6b303-2cb7-aeea-8f10-8520de2511c6@redhat.com> From: Ard Biesheuvel Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 16:50:02 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH-for-5.0] roms/edk2-funcs.sh: Use available GCC for ARM/Aarch64 targets To: =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu=2DDaud=C3=A9?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:4864:20::444 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: Laszlo Ersek , QEMU Developers Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" 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 l= og. > 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.