On 29.11.2010, 20:31 Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 11/29/10 11:21, Mathias Krause wrote: >> On 29.11.2010, 19:54 Randy Dunlap wrote: >>> On 11/29/10 10:26, Mathias Krause wrote: >>>> On 29.11.2010, 17:31 Randy Dunlap wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:03:35 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Changes since 20101126: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> on i386 builds, I get tons of these (and more) errors: >>>>> >>>>> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:841: Error: bad register name `%r12' >>>>> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:842: Error: bad register name `%r13' >>>>> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:843: Error: bad register name `%r14' >>>>> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:844: Error: bad register name `%rsp' >>>>> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:849: Error: bad register name `%rsp' >>>>> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:850: Error: bad register name `%rsp' >>>>> arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:851: Error: bad register name `%r9' >>>>> >>>>> even though the kernel .config file says: >>>>> >>>>> CONFIG_CRYPTO_AES=m >>>>> CONFIG_CRYPTO_AES_586=m >>>>> CONFIG_CRYPTO_AES_NI_INTEL=m >>>>> >>>>> Should arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S be testing >>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64 >>>>> instead of >>>>> #ifdef __x86_64__ >>>>> or does that not matter? >>>>> >>>>> or is this a toolchain issue? >>>> >>>> Well, __x86_64__ should be a build-in define of the compiler while >>>> CONFIG_X86_64 is defined for 64 bit builds in include/generated/autoconf.h. >>>> So by using the latter we should be on the safe side but if your compiler >>>> defines __x86_64__ for 32-bit builds it's simply broken. Also git grep >>>> showed quite a few more places using __x86_64__ so those would miscompile on >>>> your toolchain, too. >>>> >>>> But it looks like linux-next is just missing >>>> 559ad0ff1368baea14dbc3207d55b02bd69bda4b from Herbert's git repo at >>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/herbert/cryptodev-2.6.git. >>>> That should fix the build issue. >>> >>> The build problem still happens when that patch is applied. >> >> That's weird. So it must be something with your toolchain. >> Can you please post the output of the following commands?: >> >> $ touch /tmp/null.c; cc -m32 -dD -E /tmp/null.c | grep -E 'x86|i.86' > > #define __i386 1 > #define __i386__ 1 > #define i386 1 > #define __i586 1 > #define __i586__ 1 > >> $ touch /tmp/null.c; cc -m64 -dD -E /tmp/null.c | grep -E 'x86|i.86' > > #define __x86_64 1 > #define __x86_64__ 1 > > So that's not the problem... and the patch below didn't help. That's odd. The output of the commands looks good so the x86-64 specific code should be left out for 32-bit builds. :/ > Sorry that I even asked about that. What next? Can you please post the full error message. Meanwhile I'm checking out a linux-next tree, trying to reproduce your problem. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
