Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: compilation failure with CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_NVLINK2 | From | Laura Abbott <> | Date | Thu, 3 Jan 2019 07:08:51 -0800 |
| |
On 1/3/19 5:49 AM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > > > On 03/01/2019 03:37, Laura Abbott wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I got a compilation failure when building with CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_NVLINK2 >> enabled: >> >> + make -s 'HOSTCFLAGS=-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security >> -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -fexceptions >> -fstack-protector-strong -grecord-gcc-switches >> -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 >> -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -m64 -mcpu=power8 >> -mtune=power8 -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection' >> 'HOSTLDFLAGS=-Wl,-z,relro -Wl,--as-needed -Wl,-z,now >> -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld -Wl,--build-id=uuid' >> ARCH=powerpc -j4 modules >> BUILDSTDERR: In file included from drivers/vfio/pci/trace.h:102, >> BUILDSTDERR: from drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_nvlink2.c:29: >> BUILDSTDERR: ./include/trace/define_trace.h:89:42: fatal error: >> ./trace.h: No such file or directory >> BUILDSTDERR: #include TRACE_INCLUDE(TRACE_INCLUDE_FILE) >> BUILDSTDERR: ^ >> BUILDSTDERR: compilation terminated. >> BUILDSTDERR: make[3]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:277: >> drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci_nvlink2.o] Error 1 >> BUILDSTDERR: make[2]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:492: drivers/vfio/pci] >> Error 2 >> BUILDSTDERR: make[1]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:492: drivers/vfio] >> Error 2 >> BUILDSTDERR: make: *** [Makefile:1053: drivers] Error 2 >> BUILDSTDERR: make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... >> >> I don't know enough about ftrace building to make a guess here. >> Config is attacked. > > What gcc is this and what is the exact sha1 of the tree? gcc8 prints > other error with your config in drivers/scsi/esas2r/esas2r_ioctl.c but > not this one so I am curious. >
gcc (GCC) 8.2.1 20181215 (Red Hat 8.2.1-6)
sha 8e143b90e4d45cca3dc53760d3cfab988bc74571
>> >> Also, would it be possible to switch this option from def_bool to >> bool? I can't turn it off directly when it's def_bool. > > Why? Honestly I'd rather fix the compile error. > >
It's not just about this error, there may be other situations where it would be good to have this turned off.
Thanks, Luara
| |