On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 05:45:39PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 17:45:39 +0000 > From: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: kernel-build-reports@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: next build: 198 builds: 4 failed, 194 passed, 7 errors, 82 > warnings (next-20161214) > Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; > protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="pme7352aoyqgs7t5" > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 05:06:09PM +0100, Ralf Baechle wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 01:52:14PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 12:39:18AM -0800, kernelci.org bot wrote: > > > > > mips: gcc version 5.3.0 (Sourcery CodeBench Lite 2016.05-8) > > > > These MIPS builds have been failing in kernelci ever since MIPS was > > > added. This means that we've got a constant level of noise in the > > > results which makes them less useful for everyone - people get used to > > > ignoring errors. Is there any plan to get these fixed? > > > I wonder if these are also toolchain-related issues. allnoconfig and > > tinyconfig do build fine for me with GCC 6.1.0 and binutils 2.26.20160125. > > > generic_defconfig requires mkimage of uboot-tools or it will fail like this: > > > ITB arch/mips/boot/vmlinux.gz.itb > > "mkimage" command not found - U-Boot images will not be built > > arch/mips/boot/Makefile:159: recipe for target 'arch/mips/boot/vmlinux.gz.itb' failed > > make[1]: *** [arch/mips/boot/vmlinux.gz.itb] Error 1 > > arch/mips/Makefile:365: recipe for target 'vmlinux.gz.itb' failed > > make: *** [vmlinux.gz.itb] Error 2 > > Ah, you don't have a separate uImage target? > > > What binutils are you using and can you send me the build errors messages? > > You can see logs for all the trees we build via the web interface: > > https://kernelci.org/job/ > > I don't have access to the builders to check the binutils version > without going and finding/downloading the CodeSourcery release. Where > did your toolchain come from, is there something specific recommended > for MIPS? I specifically avoid non-standard toolchains, that is I stick to the vanilla FSF releases with no feature patches. Some configurations, in particular new cores or architecture variants may require vendor tool- chains or patches until support makes it upstream. I wonder if for the benefit of automated build testing we should tag kernel configurations with a special CONFIG_ symbol to indicate they need non-standard tools? That would allow build testing to detect and possibly skip such configuration. Ralf
