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. Kind Regards, Mathias -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
