On 24 October 2014 12:52, Russell King - ARM Linux linux@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 12:49:50PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Friday 24 October 2014 03:30:06 Olof's autobuilder wrote:
Here are the build results from automated periodic testing.
The tree being built was arm-soc, found at:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/arm/arm-soc.git (for-next or to-build branch)
Topmost commit:
06c0773 [EXPERIMENTAL] try to get Linux to build with bare-metal toolchain
This appears to have fixed one problem but not the other:
Build logs (stderr only) can be found at the following link (experimental):
http://arm-soc.lixom.net/buildlogs/arm-soc/v3.18-rc1-20-g06c0773/
Runtime: 57m 11s Passed: 129 Failed: 0 Warnings: 2917 Section mismatches: 0
Failed defconfigs:
Errors:
All build errors are gone now, after passing -D__linux__. That is good.
1 drivers/video/fbdev/sm501fb.c:245:2: warning: format '%zd' expects argument of type 'signed size_t', but argument 8 has type 'size_t' [-Wformat=] 1 mm/percpu.c:895:3: warning: format '%zu' expects argument of type 'size_t', but argument 2 has type 'unsigned int' [-Wformat=] 1 mm/percpu.c:895:3: warning: format '%zu' expects argument of type 'size_t', but argument 3 has type 'unsigned int' [-Wformat=]The warnings are completely unchanged, still 249 unique warnings involving size_t, using this patch:
That's probably because the compiler is expecting size_t to be typedef'd to __SIZE_TYPE__ and isn't expecting anyone to change it.
Indeed, I wouldn't expect the printf format validation code inside GCC to care about the actual values of macros and typedefs. Could someone dump the builtin #define's of that compiler? For instance, my bare metal 4.9 BE GCC gives me
$ /usr/local/gcc-linaro-armeb-none-eabi-4.9-2014.06_linux/bin/armeb-none-eabi-gcc -E -dM - <<<"" |grep _TYPE__ #define __UINT_LEAST8_TYPE__ unsigned char #define __SIG_ATOMIC_TYPE__ int #define __UINTMAX_TYPE__ long long unsigned int #define __INT_FAST16_TYPE__ int #define __INT_FAST64_TYPE__ long long int #define __UINT8_TYPE__ unsigned char #define __INT_FAST32_TYPE__ int #define __UINT_LEAST16_TYPE__ short unsigned int #define __SIZE_TYPE__ unsigned int #define __INT8_TYPE__ signed char #define __INT_LEAST16_TYPE__ short int #define __UINT_LEAST64_TYPE__ long long unsigned int #define __UINT_FAST16_TYPE__ unsigned int #define __CHAR16_TYPE__ short unsigned int #define __INT_LEAST64_TYPE__ long long int #define __INT16_TYPE__ short int #define __INT_LEAST8_TYPE__ signed char #define __INTPTR_TYPE__ int #define __UINT16_TYPE__ short unsigned int #define __WCHAR_TYPE__ unsigned int #define __UINT_FAST64_TYPE__ long long unsigned int #define __INT64_TYPE__ long long int #define __WINT_TYPE__ unsigned int #define __UINT_LEAST32_TYPE__ long unsigned int #define __INT_LEAST32_TYPE__ long int #define __UINT64_TYPE__ long long unsigned int #define __INT_FAST8_TYPE__ int #define __UINT_FAST32_TYPE__ unsigned int #define __CHAR32_TYPE__ long unsigned int #define __INT32_TYPE__ long int #define __INTMAX_TYPE__ long long int #define __PTRDIFF_TYPE__ int #define __UINT32_TYPE__ long unsigned int #define __UINTPTR_TYPE__ unsigned int #define __UINT_FAST8_TYPE__ unsigned int
What is surprising here is that __SIZE_TYPE__ is int not long. Could we in fact be dealing with a 4.9 bare metal GCC bug here?