Daniel Neilson via llvm-dev
2017-Oct-04 18:23 UTC
[llvm-dev] Minimal glibc version supported by LLVM build
Reverted: https://reviews.llvm.org/rL314922
On Oct 4, 2017, at 1:17 PM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
+ Rui, the patch author
Do we know what the oldest glibc which works with this patch is?
For context, the most recent REHL 5 ships with glibc 2.5. REHL 6 ships with
2.12 and REHL ships with 2.17. I have evidence that this breaks at least on
Centos 6.4 which is derived from REHL 6.
This appears to break on anything REHL 6 (or earlier) derived. I think this
patch needs to be reverted. Thoughts?
Philip
On 10/04/2017 12:08 AM, Serguei Katkov via llvm-dev wrote:
Hi All,
The landed patch https://reviews.llvm.org/D38481 introduced the usage of
CPU_COUNT defined in glibc sched.h header.
I failed to find this symbol in sched.h of glibc version 2.5-24, so compilation
just fails.
/home/dolphin/merge-from-upstream-area/ws/pristine/lib/Support/Threading.cpp: In
function ‘unsigned int llvm::hardware_concurrency()’:
/home/dolphin/merge-from-upstream-area/ws/pristine/lib/Support/Threading.cpp:80:26:
error: ‘CPU_COUNT’ was not declared in this scope
return CPU_COUNT(&Set);
^
It is buildable with newest version of glibc.
I tried to find a requirements for glibc version in LLVM documentation but
failed.
So I wonder whether there is such requirement or not.
Could anyone point me to this documentation?
I'm trying to understand whether patch is wrong which relies on availability
of library but does not check the symbol itself or this version of glibc is not
supported.
Thank you,
Serguei.
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20171004/d9b2a75c/attachment.html>
Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev
2017-Oct-04 18:24 UTC
[llvm-dev] Minimal glibc version supported by LLVM build
You also need to revert r314810 because it depends on that commit. On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Daniel Neilson <dneilson at azul.com> wrote:> Reverted: https://reviews.llvm.org/rL314922 > > On Oct 4, 2017, at 1:17 PM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > + Rui, the patch author > > Do we know what the oldest glibc which works with this patch is? > > For context, the most recent REHL 5 ships with glibc 2.5. REHL 6 ships > with 2.12 and REHL ships with 2.17. I have evidence that this breaks at > least on Centos 6.4 which is derived from REHL 6. > > This appears to break on anything REHL 6 (or earlier) derived. I think > this patch needs to be reverted. Thoughts? > > Philip > > On 10/04/2017 12:08 AM, Serguei Katkov via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hi All, > > The landed patch https://reviews.llvm.org/D38481 introduced the usage of > CPU_COUNT defined in glibc sched.h header. > I failed to find this symbol in sched.h of glibc version 2.5-24, so > compilation just fails. > /home/dolphin/merge-from-upstream-area/ws/pristine/lib/Support/Threading.cpp: > In function ‘unsigned int llvm::hardware_concurrency()’: > /home/dolphin/merge-from-upstream-area/ws/pristine/lib/Support/Threading.cpp:80:26: > error: ‘CPU_COUNT’ was not declared in this scope > return CPU_COUNT(&Set); > ^ > > It is buildable with newest version of glibc. > I tried to find a requirements for glibc version in LLVM documentation but > failed. > So I wonder whether there is such requirement or not. > Could anyone point me to this documentation? > > I'm trying to understand whether patch is wrong which relies on > availability of library but does not check the symbol itself or this > version of glibc is not supported. > > Thank you, > Serguei. > > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.orghttp://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20171004/d5b4d2d6/attachment.html>
Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev
2017-Oct-04 18:42 UTC
[llvm-dev] Minimal glibc version supported by LLVM build
r314810 is reverted in r314924. On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote:> You also need to revert r314810 because it depends on that commit. > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Daniel Neilson <dneilson at azul.com> wrote: > >> Reverted: https://reviews.llvm.org/rL314922 >> >> On Oct 4, 2017, at 1:17 PM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> + Rui, the patch author >> >> Do we know what the oldest glibc which works with this patch is? >> >> For context, the most recent REHL 5 ships with glibc 2.5. REHL 6 ships >> with 2.12 and REHL ships with 2.17. I have evidence that this breaks at >> least on Centos 6.4 which is derived from REHL 6. >> >> This appears to break on anything REHL 6 (or earlier) derived. I think >> this patch needs to be reverted. Thoughts? >> >> Philip >> >> On 10/04/2017 12:08 AM, Serguei Katkov via llvm-dev wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> The landed patch https://reviews.llvm.org/D38481 introduced the usage of >> CPU_COUNT defined in glibc sched.h header. >> I failed to find this symbol in sched.h of glibc version 2.5-24, so >> compilation just fails. >> /home/dolphin/merge-from-upstream-area/ws/pristine/lib/Support/Threading.cpp: >> In function ‘unsigned int llvm::hardware_concurrency()’: >> /home/dolphin/merge-from-upstream-area/ws/pristine/lib/Support/Threading.cpp:80:26: >> error: ‘CPU_COUNT’ was not declared in this scope >> return CPU_COUNT(&Set); >> ^ >> >> It is buildable with newest version of glibc. >> I tried to find a requirements for glibc version in LLVM documentation >> but failed. >> So I wonder whether there is such requirement or not. >> Could anyone point me to this documentation? >> >> I'm trying to understand whether patch is wrong which relies on >> availability of library but does not check the symbol itself or this >> version of glibc is not supported. >> >> Thank you, >> Serguei. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.orghttp://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> >> >> >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20171004/12566c1a/attachment.html>