On 11/29/10 12:02, Mathias Krause wrote: > On 29.11.2010, 20:54 Randy Dunlap wrote: >> On 11/29/10 11:45, Mathias Krause wrote: >>> 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. >>> >> >> I just built with "make V=1" to see the full commands that are used, but >> that didn't help me either: >> >> gcc -Wp,-MD,arch/x86/crypto/.aesni-intel_asm.o.d -nostdinc -isystem /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.4.1/include -I/lnx/src/NEXT/linux-next-20101129/arch/x86/include -Iinclude -I/lnx/src/NEXT/linux-next-20101129/include -include include/generated/autoconf.h -D__KERNEL__ -D__ASSEMBLY__ -m32 -DCONFIG_AS_CFI=1 -DCONFIG_AS_CFI_SIGNAL_FRAME=1 -DMODULE -c -o arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.o /lnx/src/NEXT/linux-next-20101129/arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S >> >> >> There are 2945 lines like this: >> >> linux-next-20101129/arch/x86/crypto/aesni-intel_asm.S:841: Error: bad register name `%r12' > > Well, in my tree (linux-next + 559ad0ff) line 841 is a comment. Albeit without > 559ad0ff it's a 'push %r12'. So maybe you should apply the patch just once > more to be sure. ;) Touche. What does that patch have to do with aesni-intel?? I'm using the linux-next tarball of 20111129. However, your s/__x86_64__/CONFIG_X86_64/ patch was applied, so I dropped it. new output file: http://oss.oracle.com/~rdunlap/doc/cry4.out >> It's around 311 KB, so I'll just put it here instead of emailing it: >> http://oss.oracle.com/~rdunlap/doc/cry32.out -- ~Randy *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code *** -- 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
