* [PATCH, v2] Fix 32-bit build for --enable-targets=all
@ 2022-04-22 13:25 Luis Machado
2022-04-24 14:58 ` Joel Brobecker
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Luis Machado @ 2022-04-22 13:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: binutils; +Cc: brobecker, jose.marchesi, vapier
v2:
- Enable disassembler support for bpf, cris, loongarch and tilegx for
32-bit BFD. This prevents crashes when GDB tries to find a disassembler
for these architectures and runs into a null pointer.
--
The following fixes the GDB build for 32-bit (tested on 32-bit arm)
for the following combinations:
* --enable-targets=all --disable-sim
* --enable-targets=all
Previously I was seeing failures of this kind:
binutils-gdb-armhf-bionic/sim/bpf/../../../../repos/binutils-gdb/sim/bpf/../common/sim-close.c:43:
undefined reference to `bpf_cgen_cpu_close`
binutils-gdb-armhf-bionic/sim/bpf/../../../../repos/binutils-gdb/sim/bpf/sim-if.c:166:
undefined reference to `bpf_cgen_cpu_open_1`
binutils-gdb-armhf-bionic/sim/bpf/../../../../repos/binutils-gdb/sim/bpf/sim-if.c:179:
undefined reference to `bpf_cgen_init_dis`
This particular combination of switches has not been tested for 32-bit
hosts in a while (since November/December 2021), so there might be bugs
that we need to address. The patch makes things build cleanly though.
Tested on aarch64-linux Ubuntu 20.04 and armhf-linux-gnueabi Ubuntu 18.04.
It would be nice to exercise this on other 32-bit targets, and get this
included in time for GDB 12.
---
opcodes/Makefile.am | 10 ++++++++++
opcodes/Makefile.in | 10 ++++++++++
opcodes/disassemble.c | 4 ++++
3 files changed, 24 insertions(+)
diff --git a/opcodes/Makefile.am b/opcodes/Makefile.am
index afd19fa7785..681fbc07584 100644
--- a/opcodes/Makefile.am
+++ b/opcodes/Makefile.am
@@ -124,6 +124,11 @@ TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES = \
arm-dis.c \
avr-dis.c \
bfin-dis.c \
+ bpf-asm.c \
+ bpf-desc.c \
+ bpf-dis.c \
+ bpf-ibld.c \
+ bpf-opc.c \
cgen-asm.c \
cgen-bitset.c \
cgen-dis.c \
@@ -178,6 +183,9 @@ TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES = \
lm32-ibld.c \
lm32-opc.c \
lm32-opinst.c \
+ loongarch-opc.c \
+ loongarch-dis.c \
+ loongarch-coder.c \
m10200-dis.c \
m10200-opc.c \
m10300-dis.c \
@@ -234,6 +242,8 @@ TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES = \
ppc-opc.c \
pru-dis.c \
pru-opc.c \
+ riscv-dis.c \
+ riscv-opc.c \
rl78-decode.c \
rl78-dis.c \
rx-decode.c \
diff --git a/opcodes/Makefile.in b/opcodes/Makefile.in
index 3ab8bfb0548..d3eee49b169 100644
--- a/opcodes/Makefile.in
+++ b/opcodes/Makefile.in
@@ -516,6 +516,11 @@ TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES = \
arm-dis.c \
avr-dis.c \
bfin-dis.c \
+ bpf-asm.c \
+ bpf-desc.c \
+ bpf-dis.c \
+ bpf-ibld.c \
+ bpf-opc.c \
cgen-asm.c \
cgen-bitset.c \
cgen-dis.c \
@@ -570,6 +575,9 @@ TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES = \
lm32-ibld.c \
lm32-opc.c \
lm32-opinst.c \
+ loongarch-opc.c \
+ loongarch-dis.c \
+ loongarch-coder.c \
m10200-dis.c \
m10200-opc.c \
m10300-dis.c \
@@ -626,6 +634,8 @@ TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES = \
ppc-opc.c \
pru-dis.c \
pru-opc.c \
+ riscv-dis.c \
+ riscv-opc.c \
rl78-decode.c \
rl78-dis.c \
rx-decode.c \
diff --git a/opcodes/disassemble.c b/opcodes/disassemble.c
index bd1b90b3956..7228df40ec0 100644
--- a/opcodes/disassemble.c
+++ b/opcodes/disassemble.c
@@ -42,7 +42,9 @@
#define ARCH_arm
#define ARCH_avr
#define ARCH_bfin
+#define ARCH_bpf
#define ARCH_cr16
+#define ARCH_cris
#define ARCH_crx
#define ARCH_csky
#define ARCH_d10v
@@ -58,6 +60,7 @@
#define ARCH_ip2k
#define ARCH_iq2000
#define ARCH_lm32
+#define ARCH_loongarch
#define ARCH_m32c
#define ARCH_m32r
#define ARCH_m68hc11
@@ -92,6 +95,7 @@
#define ARCH_tic4x
#define ARCH_tic54x
#define ARCH_tic6x
+#define ARCH_tilegx
#define ARCH_tilepro
#define ARCH_v850
#define ARCH_vax
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH, v2] Fix 32-bit build for --enable-targets=all
2022-04-22 13:25 [PATCH, v2] Fix 32-bit build for --enable-targets=all Luis Machado
@ 2022-04-24 14:58 ` Joel Brobecker
2022-04-25 7:40 ` Luis Machado
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Joel Brobecker @ 2022-04-24 14:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luis Machado; +Cc: binutils, brobecker, jose.marchesi, vapier
Hi Luis,
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 02:25:13PM +0100, Luis Machado wrote:
> v2:
>
> - Enable disassembler support for bpf, cris, loongarch and tilegx for
> 32-bit BFD. This prevents crashes when GDB tries to find a disassembler
> for these architectures and runs into a null pointer.
>
> --
>
> The following fixes the GDB build for 32-bit (tested on 32-bit arm)
> for the following combinations:
>
> * --enable-targets=all --disable-sim
> * --enable-targets=all
>
> Previously I was seeing failures of this kind:
>
> binutils-gdb-armhf-bionic/sim/bpf/../../../../repos/binutils-gdb/sim/bpf/../common/sim-close.c:43:
> undefined reference to `bpf_cgen_cpu_close`
>
> binutils-gdb-armhf-bionic/sim/bpf/../../../../repos/binutils-gdb/sim/bpf/sim-if.c:166:
> undefined reference to `bpf_cgen_cpu_open_1`
>
> binutils-gdb-armhf-bionic/sim/bpf/../../../../repos/binutils-gdb/sim/bpf/sim-if.c:179:
> undefined reference to `bpf_cgen_init_dis`
>
> This particular combination of switches has not been tested for 32-bit
> hosts in a while (since November/December 2021), so there might be bugs
> that we need to address. The patch makes things build cleanly though.
>
> Tested on aarch64-linux Ubuntu 20.04 and armhf-linux-gnueabi Ubuntu 18.04.
>
> It would be nice to exercise this on other 32-bit targets, and get this
> included in time for GDB 12.
> ---
> opcodes/Makefile.am | 10 ++++++++++
> opcodes/Makefile.in | 10 ++++++++++
> opcodes/disassemble.c | 4 ++++
> 3 files changed, 24 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/opcodes/Makefile.am b/opcodes/Makefile.am
> index afd19fa7785..681fbc07584 100644
> --- a/opcodes/Makefile.am
> +++ b/opcodes/Makefile.am
> @@ -124,6 +124,11 @@ TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES = \
> arm-dis.c \
> avr-dis.c \
> bfin-dis.c \
> + bpf-asm.c \
> + bpf-desc.c \
> + bpf-dis.c \
> + bpf-ibld.c \
> + bpf-opc.c \
> cgen-asm.c \
> cgen-bitset.c \
> cgen-dis.c \
Looking at this patch, I think you you may not have seen Alan's
comment, which je sent on Apr 18, saying:
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2022-April/187960.html
| Anything that requires 64-bit BFD support does not belong in
| TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES. In fact, the whole point of
| TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES was to fix --enable-targets=all breakage on
| 32-bit hosts without --enable-64-bit-bfd. Why would you want to put
| bpf here? It's a 64-bit target!
(I see that you weren't in the list of direct recipients for that email)
> @@ -178,6 +183,9 @@ TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES = \
> lm32-ibld.c \
> lm32-opc.c \
> lm32-opinst.c \
> + loongarch-opc.c \
> + loongarch-dis.c \
> + loongarch-coder.c \
> m10200-dis.c \
> m10200-opc.c \
> m10300-dis.c \
> @@ -234,6 +242,8 @@ TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES = \
> ppc-opc.c \
> pru-dis.c \
> pru-opc.c \
> + riscv-dis.c \
> + riscv-opc.c \
> rl78-decode.c \
> rl78-dis.c \
> rx-decode.c \
> diff --git a/opcodes/Makefile.in b/opcodes/Makefile.in
> index 3ab8bfb0548..d3eee49b169 100644
> --- a/opcodes/Makefile.in
> +++ b/opcodes/Makefile.in
> @@ -516,6 +516,11 @@ TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES = \
> arm-dis.c \
> avr-dis.c \
> bfin-dis.c \
> + bpf-asm.c \
> + bpf-desc.c \
> + bpf-dis.c \
> + bpf-ibld.c \
> + bpf-opc.c \
> cgen-asm.c \
> cgen-bitset.c \
> cgen-dis.c \
> @@ -570,6 +575,9 @@ TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES = \
> lm32-ibld.c \
> lm32-opc.c \
> lm32-opinst.c \
> + loongarch-opc.c \
> + loongarch-dis.c \
> + loongarch-coder.c \
> m10200-dis.c \
> m10200-opc.c \
> m10300-dis.c \
> @@ -626,6 +634,8 @@ TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES = \
> ppc-opc.c \
> pru-dis.c \
> pru-opc.c \
> + riscv-dis.c \
> + riscv-opc.c \
> rl78-decode.c \
> rl78-dis.c \
> rx-decode.c \
> diff --git a/opcodes/disassemble.c b/opcodes/disassemble.c
> index bd1b90b3956..7228df40ec0 100644
> --- a/opcodes/disassemble.c
> +++ b/opcodes/disassemble.c
> @@ -42,7 +42,9 @@
> #define ARCH_arm
> #define ARCH_avr
> #define ARCH_bfin
> +#define ARCH_bpf
> #define ARCH_cr16
> +#define ARCH_cris
> #define ARCH_crx
> #define ARCH_csky
> #define ARCH_d10v
> @@ -58,6 +60,7 @@
> #define ARCH_ip2k
> #define ARCH_iq2000
> #define ARCH_lm32
> +#define ARCH_loongarch
> #define ARCH_m32c
> #define ARCH_m32r
> #define ARCH_m68hc11
> @@ -92,6 +95,7 @@
> #define ARCH_tic4x
> #define ARCH_tic54x
> #define ARCH_tic6x
> +#define ARCH_tilegx
> #define ARCH_tilepro
> #define ARCH_v850
> #define ARCH_vax
> --
> 2.25.1
>
--
Joel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH, v2] Fix 32-bit build for --enable-targets=all
2022-04-24 14:58 ` Joel Brobecker
@ 2022-04-25 7:40 ` Luis Machado
2022-04-26 2:52 ` Alan Modra
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Luis Machado @ 2022-04-25 7:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joel Brobecker, Alan Modra; +Cc: binutils, jose.marchesi, vapier
Hi Joel,
On 4/24/22 15:58, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> Hi Luis,
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 02:25:13PM +0100, Luis Machado wrote:
>> v2:
>>
>> - Enable disassembler support for bpf, cris, loongarch and tilegx for
>> 32-bit BFD. This prevents crashes when GDB tries to find a disassembler
>> for these architectures and runs into a null pointer.
>>
>> --
>>
>> The following fixes the GDB build for 32-bit (tested on 32-bit arm)
>> for the following combinations:
>>
>> * --enable-targets=all --disable-sim
>> * --enable-targets=all
>>
>> Previously I was seeing failures of this kind:
>>
>> binutils-gdb-armhf-bionic/sim/bpf/../../../../repos/binutils-gdb/sim/bpf/../common/sim-close.c:43:
>> undefined reference to `bpf_cgen_cpu_close`
>>
>> binutils-gdb-armhf-bionic/sim/bpf/../../../../repos/binutils-gdb/sim/bpf/sim-if.c:166:
>> undefined reference to `bpf_cgen_cpu_open_1`
>>
>> binutils-gdb-armhf-bionic/sim/bpf/../../../../repos/binutils-gdb/sim/bpf/sim-if.c:179:
>> undefined reference to `bpf_cgen_init_dis`
>>
>> This particular combination of switches has not been tested for 32-bit
>> hosts in a while (since November/December 2021), so there might be bugs
>> that we need to address. The patch makes things build cleanly though.
>>
>> Tested on aarch64-linux Ubuntu 20.04 and armhf-linux-gnueabi Ubuntu 18.04.
>>
>> It would be nice to exercise this on other 32-bit targets, and get this
>> included in time for GDB 12.
>> ---
>> opcodes/Makefile.am | 10 ++++++++++
>> opcodes/Makefile.in | 10 ++++++++++
>> opcodes/disassemble.c | 4 ++++
>> 3 files changed, 24 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/opcodes/Makefile.am b/opcodes/Makefile.am
>> index afd19fa7785..681fbc07584 100644
>> --- a/opcodes/Makefile.am
>> +++ b/opcodes/Makefile.am
>> @@ -124,6 +124,11 @@ TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES = \
>> arm-dis.c \
>> avr-dis.c \
>> bfin-dis.c \
>> + bpf-asm.c \
>> + bpf-desc.c \
>> + bpf-dis.c \
>> + bpf-ibld.c \
>> + bpf-opc.c \
>> cgen-asm.c \
>> cgen-bitset.c \
>> cgen-dis.c \
>
> Looking at this patch, I think you you may not have seen Alan's
> comment, which je sent on Apr 18, saying:
>
> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2022-April/187960.html
> | Anything that requires 64-bit BFD support does not belong in
> | TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES. In fact, the whole point of
> | TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES was to fix --enable-targets=all breakage on
> | 32-bit hosts without --enable-64-bit-bfd. Why would you want to put
> | bpf here? It's a 64-bit target!
>
> (I see that you weren't in the list of direct recipients for that email)
>
Yes, it looks that way.
Unfortunately --enable-targets=all never really worked OK for 32-bit
builds after splitting 64/32 targets. It is not clear to me if there are
bugs elsewhere that are preventing a clean build, but right now it
doesn't look buildable at all.
Alan?
>> @@ -178,6 +183,9 @@ TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES = \
>> lm32-ibld.c \
>> lm32-opc.c \
>> lm32-opinst.c \
>> + loongarch-opc.c \
>> + loongarch-dis.c \
>> + loongarch-coder.c \
>> m10200-dis.c \
>> m10200-opc.c \
>> m10300-dis.c \
>> @@ -234,6 +242,8 @@ TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES = \
>> ppc-opc.c \
>> pru-dis.c \
>> pru-opc.c \
>> + riscv-dis.c \
>> + riscv-opc.c \
>> rl78-decode.c \
>> rl78-dis.c \
>> rx-decode.c \
>> diff --git a/opcodes/Makefile.in b/opcodes/Makefile.in
>> index 3ab8bfb0548..d3eee49b169 100644
>> --- a/opcodes/Makefile.in
>> +++ b/opcodes/Makefile.in
>> @@ -516,6 +516,11 @@ TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES = \
>> arm-dis.c \
>> avr-dis.c \
>> bfin-dis.c \
>> + bpf-asm.c \
>> + bpf-desc.c \
>> + bpf-dis.c \
>> + bpf-ibld.c \
>> + bpf-opc.c \
>> cgen-asm.c \
>> cgen-bitset.c \
>> cgen-dis.c \
>> @@ -570,6 +575,9 @@ TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES = \
>> lm32-ibld.c \
>> lm32-opc.c \
>> lm32-opinst.c \
>> + loongarch-opc.c \
>> + loongarch-dis.c \
>> + loongarch-coder.c \
>> m10200-dis.c \
>> m10200-opc.c \
>> m10300-dis.c \
>> @@ -626,6 +634,8 @@ TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES = \
>> ppc-opc.c \
>> pru-dis.c \
>> pru-opc.c \
>> + riscv-dis.c \
>> + riscv-opc.c \
>> rl78-decode.c \
>> rl78-dis.c \
>> rx-decode.c \
>> diff --git a/opcodes/disassemble.c b/opcodes/disassemble.c
>> index bd1b90b3956..7228df40ec0 100644
>> --- a/opcodes/disassemble.c
>> +++ b/opcodes/disassemble.c
>> @@ -42,7 +42,9 @@
>> #define ARCH_arm
>> #define ARCH_avr
>> #define ARCH_bfin
>> +#define ARCH_bpf
>> #define ARCH_cr16
>> +#define ARCH_cris
>> #define ARCH_crx
>> #define ARCH_csky
>> #define ARCH_d10v
>> @@ -58,6 +60,7 @@
>> #define ARCH_ip2k
>> #define ARCH_iq2000
>> #define ARCH_lm32
>> +#define ARCH_loongarch
>> #define ARCH_m32c
>> #define ARCH_m32r
>> #define ARCH_m68hc11
>> @@ -92,6 +95,7 @@
>> #define ARCH_tic4x
>> #define ARCH_tic54x
>> #define ARCH_tic6x
>> +#define ARCH_tilegx
>> #define ARCH_tilepro
>> #define ARCH_v850
>> #define ARCH_vax
>> --
>> 2.25.1
>>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH, v2] Fix 32-bit build for --enable-targets=all
2022-04-25 7:40 ` Luis Machado
@ 2022-04-26 2:52 ` Alan Modra
2022-04-26 6:31 ` Luis Machado
2022-04-26 8:07 ` Jose E. Marchesi
0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Alan Modra @ 2022-04-26 2:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luis Machado; +Cc: Joel Brobecker, binutils, jose.marchesi, vapier
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 08:40:54AM +0100, Luis Machado wrote:
> On 4/24/22 15:58, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > Looking at this patch, I think you you may not have seen Alan's
> > comment, which je sent on Apr 18, saying:
> >
> > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2022-April/187960.html
> > | Anything that requires 64-bit BFD support does not belong in
> > | TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES. In fact, the whole point of
> > | TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES was to fix --enable-targets=all breakage on
> > | 32-bit hosts without --enable-64-bit-bfd. Why would you want to put
> > | bpf here? It's a 64-bit target!
> >
> > (I see that you weren't in the list of direct recipients for that email)
> >
>
> Yes, it looks that way.
>
> Unfortunately --enable-targets=all never really worked OK for 32-bit builds
> after splitting 64/32 targets. It is not clear to me if there are bugs
> elsewhere that are preventing a clean build, but right now it doesn't look
> buildable at all.
>
> Alan?
The major problem I have with your patch is that all it does is sweep
a problem under the rug. While it may fix a build breakage I doubt
that it actually improves anything for users. For example, if I apply
your patch for a 32-bit --enable-targets=all binutils build, then
attempt to disassemble one of the bpf gas testsuite objects:
$ ~/build/gas/all32/binutils/objdump -dr tmpdir/lddw.o
/home/alan/build/gas/all32/binutils/objdump: tmpdir/lddw.o: file format not recognized
That's due to lack of the required support from bfd/elf64-bpf.c to
load bpf object files into BFD. I think you'll find a similar result
for the other targets your patch touches, and not just with objdump
but with everything else that uses libbfd.
There is also a minor problem with the patch in that it adds entries
to TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES without removing the corresponding
entries from TARGET64_LIBOPCODES_CFILES. Similarly for the defines in
opcodes/disassemble.c.
--
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH, v2] Fix 32-bit build for --enable-targets=all
2022-04-26 2:52 ` Alan Modra
@ 2022-04-26 6:31 ` Luis Machado
2022-04-26 11:43 ` Alan Modra
2022-04-27 9:57 ` Pedro Alves
2022-04-26 8:07 ` Jose E. Marchesi
1 sibling, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Luis Machado @ 2022-04-26 6:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alan Modra; +Cc: Joel Brobecker, binutils, jose.marchesi, vapier
On 4/26/22 03:52, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 08:40:54AM +0100, Luis Machado wrote:
>> On 4/24/22 15:58, Joel Brobecker wrote:
>>> Looking at this patch, I think you you may not have seen Alan's
>>> comment, which je sent on Apr 18, saying:
>>>
>>> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2022-April/187960.html
>>> | Anything that requires 64-bit BFD support does not belong in
>>> | TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES. In fact, the whole point of
>>> | TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES was to fix --enable-targets=all breakage on
>>> | 32-bit hosts without --enable-64-bit-bfd. Why would you want to put
>>> | bpf here? It's a 64-bit target!
>>>
>>> (I see that you weren't in the list of direct recipients for that email)
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it looks that way.
>>
>> Unfortunately --enable-targets=all never really worked OK for 32-bit builds
>> after splitting 64/32 targets. It is not clear to me if there are bugs
>> elsewhere that are preventing a clean build, but right now it doesn't look
>> buildable at all.
>>
>> Alan?
>
> The major problem I have with your patch is that all it does is sweep
> a problem under the rug. While it may fix a build breakage I doubt
> that it actually improves anything for users. For example, if I apply
> your patch for a 32-bit --enable-targets=all binutils build, then
> attempt to disassemble one of the bpf gas testsuite objects:
>
> $ ~/build/gas/all32/binutils/objdump -dr tmpdir/lddw.o
> /home/alan/build/gas/all32/binutils/objdump: tmpdir/lddw.o: file format not recognized
>
Yeah, I agree. Doing some more research on the code, it is the wrong
approach. Though I'm wondering what an appropriate fix would look like,
one that wouldn't require a lot of work and would still make things
build cleanly. A compromise?
> That's due to lack of the required support from bfd/elf64-bpf.c to
> load bpf object files into BFD. I think you'll find a similar result
> for the other targets your patch touches, and not just with objdump
> but with everything else that uses libbfd.
>
> There is also a minor problem with the patch in that it adds entries
> to TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES without removing the corresponding
> entries from TARGET64_LIBOPCODES_CFILES. Similarly for the defines in
> opcodes/disassemble.c.
>
Maybe some targets shouldn't be accepted as part of a 32-bit
--enable-targets=all for GDB/sim. Removing those "problematic" targets
from the list might be another possible approach I suppose.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH, v2] Fix 32-bit build for --enable-targets=all
2022-04-26 6:31 ` Luis Machado
@ 2022-04-26 11:43 ` Alan Modra
2022-04-27 9:57 ` Pedro Alves
1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Alan Modra @ 2022-04-26 11:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luis Machado; +Cc: Joel Brobecker, binutils, jose.marchesi, vapier
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 07:31:07AM +0100, Luis Machado wrote:
> Maybe some targets shouldn't be accepted as part of a 32-bit
> --enable-targets=all for GDB/sim. Removing those "problematic" targets from
> the list might be another possible approach I suppose.
Exactly.
--
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH, v2] Fix 32-bit build for --enable-targets=all
2022-04-26 6:31 ` Luis Machado
2022-04-26 11:43 ` Alan Modra
@ 2022-04-27 9:57 ` Pedro Alves
2022-04-27 11:25 ` Luis Machado
1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Pedro Alves @ 2022-04-27 9:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luis Machado, Alan Modra; +Cc: binutils, Joel Brobecker
On 2022-04-26 07:31, Luis Machado via Binutils wrote:
>>
>
> Maybe some targets shouldn't be accepted as part of a 32-bit --enable-targets=all for GDB/sim. Removing those "problematic" targets from the list might be another possible approach I suppose.
That is already the case. See ALL_64_TARGET_OBS vs ALL_TARGET_OBS in gdb/Makefile.in:
# All target-dependent objects files that require 64-bit CORE_ADDR
# (used with --enable-targets=all --enable-64-bit-bfd).
ALL_64_TARGET_OBS = \
# All other target-dependent objects files (used with --enable-targets=all).
ALL_TARGET_OBS = \
Sounds like you'd just want to move bpf-tdep.o from ALL_TARGET_OBS to ALL_64_TARGET_OBS.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH, v2] Fix 32-bit build for --enable-targets=all
2022-04-27 9:57 ` Pedro Alves
@ 2022-04-27 11:25 ` Luis Machado
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Luis Machado @ 2022-04-27 11:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pedro Alves, Alan Modra; +Cc: binutils, Joel Brobecker
On 4/27/22 10:57, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 2022-04-26 07:31, Luis Machado via Binutils wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Maybe some targets shouldn't be accepted as part of a 32-bit --enable-targets=all for GDB/sim. Removing those "problematic" targets from the list might be another possible approach I suppose.
>
> That is already the case. See ALL_64_TARGET_OBS vs ALL_TARGET_OBS in gdb/Makefile.in:
>
> # All target-dependent objects files that require 64-bit CORE_ADDR
> # (used with --enable-targets=all --enable-64-bit-bfd).
> ALL_64_TARGET_OBS = \
>
> # All other target-dependent objects files (used with --enable-targets=all).
> ALL_TARGET_OBS = \
>
>
> Sounds like you'd just want to move bpf-tdep.o from ALL_TARGET_OBS to ALL_64_TARGET_OBS.
Ah, thanks. I'll give that a try. There might be other misplaced entries.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH, v2] Fix 32-bit build for --enable-targets=all
2022-04-26 2:52 ` Alan Modra
2022-04-26 6:31 ` Luis Machado
@ 2022-04-26 8:07 ` Jose E. Marchesi
2022-04-26 13:22 ` Alan Modra
1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Jose E. Marchesi @ 2022-04-26 8:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alan Modra; +Cc: Luis Machado, Joel Brobecker, binutils, vapier
Hi Alan.
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 08:40:54AM +0100, Luis Machado wrote:
>> On 4/24/22 15:58, Joel Brobecker wrote:
>> > Looking at this patch, I think you you may not have seen Alan's
>> > comment, which je sent on Apr 18, saying:
>> >
>> > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2022-April/187960.html
>> > | Anything that requires 64-bit BFD support does not belong in
>> > | TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES. In fact, the whole point of
>> > | TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES was to fix --enable-targets=all breakage on
>> > | 32-bit hosts without --enable-64-bit-bfd. Why would you want to put
>> > | bpf here? It's a 64-bit target!
>> >
>> > (I see that you weren't in the list of direct recipients for that email)
>> >
>>
>> Yes, it looks that way.
>>
>> Unfortunately --enable-targets=all never really worked OK for 32-bit builds
>> after splitting 64/32 targets. It is not clear to me if there are bugs
>> elsewhere that are preventing a clean build, but right now it doesn't look
>> buildable at all.
>>
>> Alan?
>
> The major problem I have with your patch is that all it does is sweep
> a problem under the rug. While it may fix a build breakage I doubt
> that it actually improves anything for users. For example, if I apply
> your patch for a 32-bit --enable-targets=all binutils build, then
> attempt to disassemble one of the bpf gas testsuite objects:
>
> $ ~/build/gas/all32/binutils/objdump -dr tmpdir/lddw.o
> /home/alan/build/gas/all32/binutils/objdump: tmpdir/lddw.o: file format not recognized
>
> That's due to lack of the required support from bfd/elf64-bpf.c to
> load bpf object files into BFD.
Could you please elaborate on that?
What is it in elf64-bpf.c that must be improved in order to support
32-bit --enable-targets=all binutils?
> I think you'll find a similar result for the other targets your patch
> touches, and not just with objdump but with everything else that uses
> libbfd.
>
> There is also a minor problem with the patch in that it adds entries
> to TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES without removing the corresponding
> entries from TARGET64_LIBOPCODES_CFILES. Similarly for the defines in
> opcodes/disassemble.c.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH, v2] Fix 32-bit build for --enable-targets=all
2022-04-26 8:07 ` Jose E. Marchesi
@ 2022-04-26 13:22 ` Alan Modra
2022-04-29 12:35 ` Luis Machado
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Alan Modra @ 2022-04-26 13:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jose E. Marchesi; +Cc: Luis Machado, Joel Brobecker, binutils, vapier
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 10:07:53AM +0200, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
>
> Hi Alan.
>
> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 08:40:54AM +0100, Luis Machado wrote:
> >> On 4/24/22 15:58, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> >> > Looking at this patch, I think you you may not have seen Alan's
> >> > comment, which je sent on Apr 18, saying:
> >> >
> >> > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2022-April/187960.html
> >> > | Anything that requires 64-bit BFD support does not belong in
> >> > | TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES. In fact, the whole point of
> >> > | TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES was to fix --enable-targets=all breakage on
> >> > | 32-bit hosts without --enable-64-bit-bfd. Why would you want to put
> >> > | bpf here? It's a 64-bit target!
> >> >
> >> > (I see that you weren't in the list of direct recipients for that email)
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yes, it looks that way.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately --enable-targets=all never really worked OK for 32-bit builds
> >> after splitting 64/32 targets. It is not clear to me if there are bugs
> >> elsewhere that are preventing a clean build, but right now it doesn't look
> >> buildable at all.
> >>
> >> Alan?
> >
> > The major problem I have with your patch is that all it does is sweep
> > a problem under the rug. While it may fix a build breakage I doubt
> > that it actually improves anything for users. For example, if I apply
> > your patch for a 32-bit --enable-targets=all binutils build, then
> > attempt to disassemble one of the bpf gas testsuite objects:
> >
> > $ ~/build/gas/all32/binutils/objdump -dr tmpdir/lddw.o
> > /home/alan/build/gas/all32/binutils/objdump: tmpdir/lddw.o: file format not recognized
> >
> > That's due to lack of the required support from bfd/elf64-bpf.c to
> > load bpf object files into BFD.
>
> Could you please elaborate on that?
>
> What is it in elf64-bpf.c that must be improved in order to support
> 32-bit --enable-targets=all binutils?
It isn't that elf64-bpf.c is missing something, it's that the entire
file is not built on a 32-bit host with --enable-targets=all and
without --enable-64-bit-bfd.
> > I think you'll find a similar result for the other targets your patch
> > touches, and not just with objdump but with everything else that uses
> > libbfd.
> >
> > There is also a minor problem with the patch in that it adds entries
> > to TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES without removing the corresponding
> > entries from TARGET64_LIBOPCODES_CFILES. Similarly for the defines in
> > opcodes/disassemble.c.
--
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH, v2] Fix 32-bit build for --enable-targets=all
2022-04-26 13:22 ` Alan Modra
@ 2022-04-29 12:35 ` Luis Machado
2022-04-29 16:22 ` Pedro Alves
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Luis Machado @ 2022-04-29 12:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alan Modra, Jose E. Marchesi; +Cc: Joel Brobecker, binutils, vapier
On 4/26/22 14:22, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 10:07:53AM +0200, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
>>
>> Hi Alan.
>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 08:40:54AM +0100, Luis Machado wrote:
>>>> On 4/24/22 15:58, Joel Brobecker wrote:
>>>>> Looking at this patch, I think you you may not have seen Alan's
>>>>> comment, which je sent on Apr 18, saying:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2022-April/187960.html
>>>>> | Anything that requires 64-bit BFD support does not belong in
>>>>> | TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES. In fact, the whole point of
>>>>> | TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES was to fix --enable-targets=all breakage on
>>>>> | 32-bit hosts without --enable-64-bit-bfd. Why would you want to put
>>>>> | bpf here? It's a 64-bit target!
>>>>>
>>>>> (I see that you weren't in the list of direct recipients for that email)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it looks that way.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately --enable-targets=all never really worked OK for 32-bit builds
>>>> after splitting 64/32 targets. It is not clear to me if there are bugs
>>>> elsewhere that are preventing a clean build, but right now it doesn't look
>>>> buildable at all.
>>>>
>>>> Alan?
>>>
>>> The major problem I have with your patch is that all it does is sweep
>>> a problem under the rug. While it may fix a build breakage I doubt
>>> that it actually improves anything for users. For example, if I apply
>>> your patch for a 32-bit --enable-targets=all binutils build, then
>>> attempt to disassemble one of the bpf gas testsuite objects:
>>>
>>> $ ~/build/gas/all32/binutils/objdump -dr tmpdir/lddw.o
>>> /home/alan/build/gas/all32/binutils/objdump: tmpdir/lddw.o: file format not recognized
>>>
>>> That's due to lack of the required support from bfd/elf64-bpf.c to
>>> load bpf object files into BFD.
>>
>> Could you please elaborate on that?
>>
>> What is it in elf64-bpf.c that must be improved in order to support
>> 32-bit --enable-targets=all binutils?
>
> It isn't that elf64-bpf.c is missing something, it's that the entire
> file is not built on a 32-bit host with --enable-targets=all and
> without --enable-64-bit-bfd.
>
>>> I think you'll find a similar result for the other targets your patch
>>> touches, and not just with objdump but with everything else that uses
>>> libbfd.
>>>
>>> There is also a minor problem with the patch in that it adds entries
>>> to TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES without removing the corresponding
>>> entries from TARGET64_LIBOPCODES_CFILES. Similarly for the defines in
>>> opcodes/disassemble.c.
>
After some investigation, it seems the bpf target is a bit of a corner
case. It's within the 64-bit bfd group, so libopcodes gets built only if
--enable-64-bit-bfd. Otherwise, libopcodes doesn't include bpf.
The bpf sim gets built regardless of having a 32-bit bfd or 64-bit bfd,
so in the case of a 32-bit build with --enable-targets=all (and no
--enable-64-bit-bfd), libopcodes doesn't include bpf, causing a libsim
linking failure due to missing symbols (.
Things work fine for 64-bit though. I think the fix would involve not
building the sim if the bpf files are not linked into libopcodes.
--
libsim.a(sim-close.o): In function `sim_close':
/builds/binutils-gdb-armhf-bionic/sim/bpf/../../../../repos/binutils-gdb/sim/bpf/../common/sim-close.c:43:
undefined reference to `bpf_cgen_cpu_close'
libsim.a(sim-if.o): In function `sim_open':
/builds/binutils-gdb-armhf-bionic/sim/bpf/../../../../repos/binutils-gdb/sim/bpf/sim-if.c:166:
undefined reference to `bpf_cgen_cpu_open_1'
/builds/binutils-gdb-armhf-bionic/sim/bpf/../../../../repos/binutils-gdb/sim/bpf/sim-if.c:179:
undefined reference to `bpf_cgen_init_dis'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH, v2] Fix 32-bit build for --enable-targets=all
2022-04-29 12:35 ` Luis Machado
@ 2022-04-29 16:22 ` Pedro Alves
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Pedro Alves @ 2022-04-29 16:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luis Machado, Alan Modra, Jose E. Marchesi; +Cc: binutils, Joel Brobecker
On 2022-04-29 13:35, Luis Machado via Binutils wrote:
>
> After some investigation, it seems the bpf target is a bit of a corner case. It's within the 64-bit bfd group, so libopcodes gets built only if --enable-64-bit-bfd. Otherwise, libopcodes doesn't include bpf.
>
> The bpf sim gets built regardless of having a 32-bit bfd or 64-bit bfd, so in the case of a 32-bit build with --enable-targets=all (and no --enable-64-bit-bfd), libopcodes doesn't include bpf, causing a libsim linking failure due to missing symbols (.
>
> Things work fine for 64-bit though. I think the fix would involve not building the sim if the bpf files are not linked into libopcodes.
Can't the sim m4_include bfd64.m4 too and check enable_64_bit_bfd like opcodes, gdb, ld, etc. do?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-04-29 16:22 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-04-22 13:25 [PATCH, v2] Fix 32-bit build for --enable-targets=all Luis Machado
2022-04-24 14:58 ` Joel Brobecker
2022-04-25 7:40 ` Luis Machado
2022-04-26 2:52 ` Alan Modra
2022-04-26 6:31 ` Luis Machado
2022-04-26 11:43 ` Alan Modra
2022-04-27 9:57 ` Pedro Alves
2022-04-27 11:25 ` Luis Machado
2022-04-26 8:07 ` Jose E. Marchesi
2022-04-26 13:22 ` Alan Modra
2022-04-29 12:35 ` Luis Machado
2022-04-29 16:22 ` Pedro Alves
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).