DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>
To: adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com
Cc: dev <dev@dpdk.org>,
	 Gowrishankar Muthukrishnan <gowrishankar.m@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Chao Zhu <chaozhu@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	 Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>,
	Thomas Monjalon <thomasm@mellanox.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] 18.08 build error on ppc64el - bool as vector type
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 14:38:35 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAATJJ0KFLySTL=9mL0eN-T+-OttzxMvJRDc0TO0iM4fgsrJGqA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180828114422.GG3695@6wind.com>

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 1:44 PM Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 01:30:12PM +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 2:22 PM Adrien Mazarguil <
> adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Christian,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 05:11:41PM +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> > > > Just FYI the simple change hits similar issues later on.
> > > >
> > > > The (not really) proposed patch would have to be extended to be as
> > > > following.
> > > > We really need a better solution (or somebody has to convince me
> that my
> > > > change is better than a band aid).
> > >
> > > Thanks for reporting. I've made a quick investigation on my own and
> believe
> > > it's a toolchain issue which may affect more than this PMD;
> potentially all
> > > users of stdbool.h (C11) on this platform.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah I assumed as much, which is why I was hoping that some of the arch
> > experts would jump in and say "yeah this is a common thing and correctly
> > handled like <FOO>"
> > I'll continue trying to reach out to people that should know better still
> > ...
> >
> >
> > > C11's stdbool.h defines a bool macro as _Bool (big B) along with
> > > true/false. On PPC targets, another file (altivec.h) defines bool as
> _bool
> > > (small b) but not true/false:
> > >
> > >  #if !defined(__APPLE_ALTIVEC__)
> > >  /* You are allowed to undef these for C++ compatibility.  */
> > >  #define vector __vector
> > >  #define pixel __pixel
> > >  #define bool __bool
> > >  #endif
> > >
> > > mlx5_nl.c explicitly includes stdbool.h to get the above definitions
> then
> > > includes mlx5.h -> rte_ether.h -> ppc_64/rte_memcpy.h -> altivec.h.
> > >
> > > For some reason the conflicting bool redefinition doesn't seem to
> raise any
> > > warnings, but results in mismatching bool and true/false definitions;
> an
> > > integer value cannot be assigned to a bool variable anymore, hence the
> > > build
> > > failure.
> > >
> > > The inability to assign integer values to bool is, in my opinion, a
> > > fundamental issue caused by altivec.h. If there is no way to fix this
> on
> > > the
> > > system, there are a couple of workarounds for DPDK, by order of
> preference:
> > >
> > > 1. Always #undef bool after including altivec.h in
> > >    lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/ppc_64/rte_memcpy.h. I do not
> think
> > >    anyone expects this type to be unusable with true/false or integer
> > > values
> > >    anyway. The version of altivec.h I have doesn't rely on this macro
> at
> > >    all so it's probably not a big loss.
> > >
> >
> > The undef of a definition in header A by hedaer B can lead to most
> > interesting, still broken effects.
> > If e.g. one does
> > #include <stdbool.h>
> > #include "mlx5.h"
> >
> > or similar then it would undefine that of stdbool as well right?
> > In any case, the undefine not only would be suspicious it also fails
> right
> > away:
> >
> > In file included from
> > /home/ubuntu/deb_dpdk/lib/librte_eal/common/malloc_heap.c:27:
> > /home/ubuntu/deb_dpdk/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_memalloc.h:30:15:
> > error: unknown
> > type name ‘bool’; did you mean ‘_Bool’?
> >   int socket, bool exact);
> >               ^~~~
> >               _Bool
> > [...]
> >
> >
> >
> > >    Ditto for "pixel" and "vector" keywords. Alternatively you could
> #define
> > >    __APPLE_ALTIVEC__ before including altivec.h to prevent them from
> > > getting
> > >    defined in the first place.
> > >
> >
> > Interesting I got plenty of these:
> > In file included from
> > /home/ubuntu/deb_dpdk/lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c:25:
> > /home/ubuntu/deb_dpdk/debian/build/static-root/include/rte_memcpy.h:39:
> > warning:
> > "__APPLE_ALTIVEC__" redefined
> > #define __APPLE_ALTIVEC__
> >
> > With a few of it being even errors, but the position of the original
> define
> > is interesting.
> > /home/ubuntu/deb_dpdk/debian/build/static-root/include/rte_memcpy.h:39:
> error:
> > "__APPLE_ALTIVEC__" redefined [-Werror]
> > #define __APPLE_ALTIVEC__
> > <built-in>: note: this is the location of the previous definition
> >
> > So if being a built-in, shouldn't it ALWAYS be defined and never
> > over-declare the bool type?
> >
> > Checking GCC on the platform:
> > $ gcc -dM -E - < /dev/null | grep ALTI
> > #define __ALTIVEC__ 1
> > #define __APPLE_ALTIVEC__ 1
> >
> >
> > I added an #error in the header and dropped all dpdk changes.
> > if !defined(__APPLE_ALTIVEC__)
> > /* You are allowed to undef these for C++ compatibility.  */
> > #error WOULD REDECLARE BOOL
> > #define vector __vector
> >
> > And I get:
> > gcc -Wp,-MD,./.mlx4.o.d.tmp -Wdate-time -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -m64 -pthread
> >   -DRTE_MACHINE_CPUFLAG_PPC64 -DRTE_MACHINE_CPUFLAG_ALTIVEC
> > -DRTE_MACHINE_CPUFLAG_VSX  -I/home/ubuntu/deb_dpdk/debia
> > n/build/static-root/include -include
> > /home/ubuntu/deb_dpdk/debian/build/static-root/include/rte_config.h -O3
> > -std=c11 -Wall -Wextra -g -I. -D_BSD_SOURCE -D_DEFAULT_SOURCE
> > -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=600
> > -W -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations
> > -Wold-style-definition -Wpointer-arith -Wcast-align -Wnested-externs
> > -Wcast-qual -Wformat-nonliteral -Wformat-securi
> > ty -Wundef -Wwrite-strings -Wdeprecated -Wimplicit-fallthrough=2
> > -Wno-format-truncation -DALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_API -Wno-error=cast-qual
> > -DNDEBUG -UPEDANTIC   -g -g -o mlx4.o -c /home/ubuntu/de
> > b_dpdk/drivers/net/mlx4/mlx4.c
> > In file included from
> > /home/ubuntu/deb_dpdk/debian/build/static-root/include/rte_memcpy.h:39,
> >                 from
> > /home/ubuntu/deb_dpdk/debian/build/static-root/include/rte_ether.h:21,
> >                 from
> > /home/ubuntu/deb_dpdk/debian/build/static-root/include/rte_ethdev.h:158,
> >                 from
> >
> /home/ubuntu/deb_dpdk/debian/build/static-root/include/rte_ethdev_driver.h:18,
> >
> >                 from /home/ubuntu/deb_dpdk/drivers/net/mlx4/mlx4.c:35:
> > /usr/lib/gcc/powerpc64le-linux-gnu/8/include/altivec.h:44:2: error:
> #error
> > WOULD REDECLARE BOOL
> > #error WOULD REDECLARE BOOL
> >
> > But a quick sanity test with a hello world including this special altivec
> > header did build not reaching the #error.
> > So something in DPDK undefines __ALTIVEC__ ?!
> >
> > After being that close I found which of our usual build does the switch
> to
> > trigger this.
> > It is "-std=c11"
> >
> > And in fact
> > $ gcc -std=c11 -dM -E - < /dev/null | grep ALTI
> > #define __ALTIVEC__ 1
> >
> > But no __APPLE_ALTIVEC__
> >
> > The header says
> > /* You are allowed to undef these for C++ compatibility.  */
> >
> > But I thought "wait a minute, didn't we just undefine it above and it
> > failed?"
> > Yes we did, and it turns out not all gcc calls have --std=c11 and due to
> > that it failed for those.
> >
> >
> >
> > 2. Add Altivec detection to impacted users of stdbool.h, which #undef and
> > >    redefine bool as _Bool on their own with a short comment about
> broken
> > >    toolchains.
> > >
> >
> > I tested a few versions of this after my findings on #1 above.
> > A few extra loops to jump like to make drivers/net/cxgbe/cxgbe_compat.h
> > usage of bool happy.
> > I eventually came up with the following as a fix that seems to work:
> >
> > --- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/ppc_64/rte_memcpy.h
> > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/ppc_64/rte_memcpy.h
> > @@ -37,6 +37,19 @@
> > #include <string.h>
> > /*To include altivec.h, GCC version must  >= 4.8 */
> > #include <altivec.h>
> > +/*
> > + * if built with std=c11 stdbool and vector bool will conflict.
> > + * But if std is not c11 (which is true for some of our gcc calls) it
> will
> > + * have __APPLE_ALTIVEC__ defined which will make it not define the
> types
> > + * at all.
> > + * Furthermore we need to be careful to only redefine as stdbool would
> have
> > + * done if it was included - otherwise we might conflict with other
> > intended
> > + * meanings of "bool".
> > + */
> > +#if defined(__STDC_VERSION__) && __STDC_VERSION__ >= 201112L &&
> > defined(_STDBOOL_H)
> > +#undef bool
> > +#define bool _Bool
> > +#endif
> >
> > #ifdef __cplusplus
> > extern "C" {
> >
> >
> > In turn I have only checked this modification on ppc64 so far, but
> anyway I
> > still have the feeling we are only trying to poke at things with a stick
> > and someone with subject matter experience would just tell us.
> > Opinions on the change above as a "v2 RFC"?
>
> Thanks for the detailed analysis :)
>
> I'm afraid this suggestion can still break since stdbool.h won't be
> necessarily included before altivec.h. How about this instead?
>
>  /* Blurb */
>  #ifndef __APPLE_ALTIVEC__
>  #define __APPLE_ALTIVEC__ 1
>  #endif
>  #include <altivec.h>
>

I was there before in my experiments - even a bit safer with the following
to only do so in C11 mode to avoid cases where one might have "undefined"
it in non C11 for a reason so we do not switch it on again unexpectedly.

--- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/ppc_64/rte_memcpy.h
+++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/ppc_64/rte_memcpy.h
@@ -36,6 +36,14 @@
#include <stdint.h>
#include <string.h>
/*To include altivec.h, GCC version must  >= 4.8 */
+/*
+ * If built with std=c11 stdbool and altivec bool will conflict.
+ * The altivec bool type is not needed at the moment, to avoid the conflict
+ * define __APPLE_ALTIVEC__ so that the conflict will not happen.
+ */
+#if defined(__STDC_VERSION__) && __STDC_VERSION__ >= 201112L &&
!defined(__APPLE_ALTIVEC__)
+#define __APPLE_ALTIVEC__
+#endif
#include <altivec.h>

#ifdef __cplusplus

But it turned out we are not allowed to switch of other things as vector
(and probably some more code than the type) is actually used:
With your suggestion or mine above it will break on:

x5.o -c /home/ubuntu/deb_dpdk/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5.c
In file included from /home/ubuntu/deb_dpdk/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_prm.h:21,
                from /home/ubuntu/deb_dpdk/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_rxtx.h:37,
                from /home/ubuntu/deb_dpdk/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5.h:36,
                from /home/ubuntu/deb_dpdk/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5.c:42:
/home/ubuntu/deb_dpdk/debian/build/static-root/include/rte_vect.h:43:15: error:
expected ‘;’ before ‘signed’
typedef vector signed int xmm_t;
              ^~~~~~~
              ;
/home/ubuntu/deb_dpdk/debian/build/static-root/include/rte_vect.h:49:2: error:
expected specifier-qualifier-list before ‘xmm_t’
 xmm_t    x;
 ^~~~~

I have no much better suggestion for the ordering issue that you raised.
To test what would happen I moved the stdbool include after all other
includes in drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_nl.c
I also moved mlx5.h (which eventually brings in altivec) right at the top.
This works to build, but such a check is always subtle as one of the other
includes might have pulled in stdbool before altivec still.
For a bit of confidence I picked said gcc call and ran it with -E.
The output suggests altivec really was included before stdbool.

$ grep -e 'stdbool.h' -e 'altivec.h' mlx5_nl.E
# 1 "/usr/lib/gcc/powerpc64le-linux-gnu/8/include/altivec.h" 1 3 4
# 1 "/usr/lib/gcc/powerpc64le-linux-gnu/8/include/stdbool.h" 1 3 4

Still the build worked with the fix as suggested in my last mail:
--- a/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/ppc_64/rte_memcpy.h
+++ b/lib/librte_eal/common/include/arch/ppc_64/rte_memcpy.h
@@ -37,6 +37,19 @@
#include <string.h>
/*To include altivec.h, GCC version must  >= 4.8 */
#include <altivec.h>
+/*
+ * if built with std=c11 stdbool and vector bool will conflict.
+ * But if std is not c11 (which is true for some of our gcc calls) it will
+ * have __APPLE_ALTIVEC__ defined which will make it not define the types
+ * at all.
+ * Furthermore we need to be careful to only redefine as stdbool would have
+ * done if it was included - otherwise we might conflict with other
intended
+ * meanings of "bool".
+ */
+#if defined(__STDC_VERSION__) && __STDC_VERSION__ >= 201112L &&
defined(_STDBOOL_H)
+#undef bool
+#define bool _Bool
+#endif

#ifdef __cplusplus
extern "C" {

Which is odd, as I'd have expected the stdbool.h inclusion would then
trigger a redefinition of the bool type.


-- 
> Adrien Mazarguil
> 6WIND
>


-- 
Christian Ehrhardt
Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server
Canonical Ltd

  reply	other threads:[~2018-08-28 12:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-08-21 14:19 Christian Ehrhardt
2018-08-22 15:11 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2018-08-27 12:22   ` Adrien Mazarguil
2018-08-28 11:30     ` Christian Ehrhardt
2018-08-28 11:44       ` Adrien Mazarguil
2018-08-28 12:38         ` Christian Ehrhardt [this message]
2018-08-28 15:02           ` Adrien Mazarguil
2018-08-29  8:27             ` Christian Ehrhardt
2018-08-29 13:16               ` Adrien Mazarguil
2018-08-29 14:37                 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2018-08-30  8:36                   ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-08-30 11:22                     ` Alfredo Mendoza
2018-08-31  3:44                     ` Chao Zhu
2018-09-27 14:11                       ` Christian Ehrhardt
2018-08-30  9:48                   ` Christian Ehrhardt
2018-08-30 10:00                     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ppc64: fix compilation of when AltiVec is enabled Christian Ehrhardt
2018-08-30 10:52                     ` Takeshi T Yoshimura
2018-08-30 11:58                       ` Christian Ehrhardt
2018-11-05 14:15                         ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-11-05 21:20                           ` Pradeep Satyanarayana
2018-11-07 10:03                             ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-11-07 18:58                               ` dwilder
2018-11-07 21:21                                 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-11-07 23:53                                   ` Pradeep Satyanarayana

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAATJJ0KFLySTL=9mL0eN-T+-OttzxMvJRDc0TO0iM4fgsrJGqA@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com \
    --cc=adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com \
    --cc=bluca@debian.org \
    --cc=chaozhu@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=gowrishankar.m@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=thomasm@mellanox.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).