Re: For an armv7 context, /usr/local/llvm1[789]/lib/clang/1[789]/include/arm_bf16.h does not exist: one thing blocking a firefox build via llvm1[78]

On Sep 3, 2024, at 13:32, Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 12:09:55PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote:
>> On Sep 3, 2024, at 11:12, Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 10:05:06PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote:
>>>> On Aug 30, 2024, at 21:26, Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Aug 30, 2024, at 20:33, Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> [Subject was retitled.]
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Aug 30, 2024, at 16:24, Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> What my test-of-building got was: No <arm_bf16.h> include file found and
>>>>>>> no OFlags::TMPFILE found (OFlags:: was found, TMPFILE in OFlags:: was not):
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In file included from /wrkdirs/usr/ports/www/firefox/work/firefox-129.0.2/mfbt/lz4/xxhash.c:43:
>>>>>>> In file included from /wrkdirs/usr/ports/www/firefox/work/firefox-129.0.2/mfbt/lz4/xxhash.h:3434:
>>>>>>> /usr/local/llvm17/lib/clang/17/include/arm_neon.h:37:10: fatal error: 'arm_bf16.h' file not found
>>>>>>> 37 | #include <arm_bf16.h>
>>>>>>>  |          ^~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>>> . . .
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> error[E0599]: no associated item named `TMPFILE` found for struct `backend::fs::types::OFlags` in the current scope
>>>>>>> --> /wrkdirs/usr/ports/www/firefox/work/firefox-129.0.2/third_party/rust/rustix/src/backend/libc/fs/syscalls.rs:144:32
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> 144 |       if oflags.contains(OFlags::TMPFILE) && crate::backend::if_glibc_is_less_than_2_25() {
>>>>>>> |                                  ^^^^^^^ associated item not found in `OFlags`
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> ::: /wrkdirs/usr/ports/www/firefox/work/firefox-129.0.2/third_party/rust/rustix/src/backend/libc/fs/types.rs:203:1
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> 203 | / bitflags! {
>>>>>>> 204 | |     /// `O_*` constants for use with [`openat`].
>>>>>>> 205 | |     ///
>>>>>>> 206 | |     /// [`openat`]: crate::fs::openat
>>>>>>> ...   |
>>>>>>> 333 | |     }
>>>>>>> 334 | | }
>>>>>>> | |_- associated item `TMPFILE` not found for this struct
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> . . .
>>>>>>> = note: this error originates in the macro `$crate::__impl_bitflags` which comes from the expansion of the macro `bitflags` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> . . .
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> error[E0599]: no associated item named `TMPFILE` found for struct `backend::fs::types::OFlags` in the current scope
>>>>>>> --> /wrkdirs/usr/ports/www/firefox/work/firefox-129.0.2/third_party/rust/rustix/src/backend/libc/fs/syscalls.rs:207:32
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> 207 |       if oflags.contains(OFlags::TMPFILE) && crate::backend::if_glibc_is_less_than_2_25() {
>>>>>>> |                                  ^^^^^^^ associated item not found in `OFlags`
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> ::: /wrkdirs/usr/ports/www/firefox/work/firefox-129.0.2/third_party/rust/rustix/src/backend/libc/fs/types.rs:203:1
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> 203 | / bitflags! {
>>>>>>> 204 | |     /// `O_*` constants for use with [`openat`].
>>>>>>> 205 | |     ///
>>>>>>> 206 | |     /// [`openat`]: crate::fs::openat
>>>>>>> ...   |
>>>>>>> 333 | |     }
>>>>>>> 334 | | }
>>>>>>> | |_- associated item `TMPFILE` not found for this struct
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> . . .
>>>>>>> = note: this error originates in the macro `$crate::__impl_bitflags` which comes from the expansion of the macro `bitflags` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> . . .
>>>>>>> = note: this error originates in the macro `$crate::__impl_bitflags` which comes from the expansion of the macro `bitflags` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0599`.
>>>>>>> error: could not compile `rustix` (lib) due to 2 previous errors
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> For reference:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> # uname -apKU
>>>>>>> FreeBSD aarch64-main-pbase 15.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 15.0-CURRENT #8 main-n271819-5cbb98c8259c-dirty: Fri Aug 23 22:06:47 PDT 2024     root@aarch64-main-pbase:/usr/obj/BUILDs/main-CA76-nodbg-clang/usr/main-src/arm64.aarch64/sys/GENERIC-NODBG-CA76 arm64 aarch64 1500023 1500023
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> # ~/fbsd-based-on-what-commit.sh -C /usr/ports/
>>>>>>> 87a38a839ab8 (HEAD -> main, freebsd/main, freebsd/HEAD) net-im/dissent: update package description
>>>>>>> Author:     Jan Beich <jbeich@FreeBSD.org>
>>>>>>> Commit:     Jan Beich <jbeich@FreeBSD.org>
>>>>>>> CommitDate: 2024-08-24 18:30:01 +0000
>>>>>>> branch: main
>>>>>>> merge-base: 87a38a839ab83c2def100a0975a7afb29e873cf2
>>>>>>> merge-base: CommitDate: 2024-08-24 18:30:01 +0000
>>>>>>> n674987 (--first-parent --count for merge-base)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> But firefox was updated to use: nss>=3.103:security/nss to match what was
>>>>>>> available.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Using devel/llvm18 instead got the same.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Looking inside even a /usr/local/llvm19/lib/clang/19/include/
>>>>>> also shows the arm_bf16.h file is not present. By contrast,
>>>>>> for an aarch64 context:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> # file /usr/local/llvm19/lib/clang/19/include/arm_bf16.h
>>>>>> /usr/local/llvm19/lib/clang/19/include/arm_bf16.h: C source, ASCII text
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Looking quickly at more llvm* shows:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> # grep -r arm_bf16 /usr/ports/devel/llvm1*/ | more
>>>>>> /usr/ports/devel/llvm11/pkg-plist:%%CLANG%%llvm%%LLVM_SUFFIX%%/lib/clang/%%LLVM_RELEASE%%/include/arm_bf16.h
>>>>>> /usr/ports/devel/llvm12/pkg-plist:%%CLANG%%llvm%%LLVM_SUFFIX%%/lib/clang/%%LLVM_RELEASE%%/include/arm_bf16.h
>>>>>> /usr/ports/devel/llvm13/pkg-plist:%%CLANG%%llvm%%LLVM_SUFFIX%%/lib/clang/%%LLVM_RELEASE%%/include/arm_bf16.h
>>>>>> /usr/ports/devel/llvm14/Makefile:_BE_INCS_ARM=          arm_bf16.h arm_cde.h arm_fp16.h arm_mve.h arm_neon.h arm_sve.h
>>>>>> /usr/ports/devel/llvm15/Makefile:_BE_INCS_ARM=          arm_bf16.h arm_cde.h arm_fp16.h arm_mve.h arm_neon.h arm_sve.h
>>>>>> /usr/ports/devel/llvm16/files/patch-backport-llvm-db49231:    `arm_sve.h` and `arm_bf16.h`, and all those generated files will contain a
>>>>>> /usr/ports/devel/llvm16/files/patch-backport-llvm-db49231:    `arm_bf16.h` immediately before their own typedef:
>>>>>> /usr/ports/devel/llvm16/files/patch-backport-llvm-db49231:        #include <arm_bf16.h>
>>>>>> /usr/ports/devel/llvm16/files/patch-backport-llvm-db49231:    Since `arm_bf16.h` is very likely supposed to be the one true place where
>>>>>> /usr/ports/devel/llvm16/files/patch-backport-llvm-db49231:   OS << "#include <arm_bf16.h>\n";
>>>>>> /usr/ports/devel/llvm16/files/patch-backport-llvm-db49231:   OS << "#include <arm_bf16.h>\n";
>>>>>> /usr/ports/devel/llvm16/Makefile:_BE_INCS_ARM=          arm_bf16.h arm_cde.h arm_fp16.h arm_mve.h arm_neon.h arm_sve.h
>>>>>> /usr/ports/devel/llvm17/Makefile:_BE_INCS_AArch64=      arm_bf16.h arm_sme_draft_spec_subject_to_change.h
>>>>>> /usr/ports/devel/llvm18/Makefile:_BE_INCS_AArch64=      arm_bf16.h
>>>>>> /usr/ports/devel/llvm19/Makefile:_BE_INCS_AArch64=      arm_bf16.h
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> llvm1[456] had _BE_INCS_ARM containing arm_bf16.h (and more).
>>>>>> llvm1[789] do not.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I wonder if:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/commit/devel/llvm17/Makefile?id=778e212f234a825c5e19612df4be2e8f838cb024
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> doing:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -_BE_INCS_ARM= arm_bf16.h arm_cde.h arm_fp16.h arm_mve.h arm_neon.h arm_sve.h
>>>>>> +_BE_INCS_ARM= arm_cde.h arm_fp16.h arm_mve.h arm_neon.h arm_sve.h
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> was correct.  I'll note that in an armv7 context:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> # find /usr/local/*/gcc14/ -name arm_bf16.h -print
>>>>>> /usr/local/lib/gcc14/gcc/armv7-portbld-freebsd15.0/14.2.0/include/arm_bf16.h
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> suggesting that gcc14 considers the file as not aarch64 specific but
>>>>>> as armv7 compatibile.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I got that wrong! arm vs. aarch64 have different source files with the
>>>>> same name (under different paths):
>>>>> 
>>>>> gcc/gcc/config/arm/arm_bf16.h     has guard test: #ifndef _GCC_ARM_BF16_H
>>>>> gcc/gcc/config/aarch64/arm_bf16.h has guard test: #ifndef _AARCH64_BF16_H_
>>>>> 
>>>>> (More content is different.)
>>>> 
>>>> As for llvm*:
>>>> 
>>>> clang/lib/Basic/Targets/ARM.cpp has:
>>>> 
>>>> if (HasBFloat16) {
>>>>   Builder.defineMacro("__ARM_FEATURE_BF16", "1");
>>>>   Builder.defineMacro("__ARM_FEATURE_BF16_VECTOR_ARITHMETIC", "1");
>>>>   Builder.defineMacro("__ARM_BF16_FORMAT_ALTERNATIVE", "1");
>>>> }
>>>> 
>>>> clang/lib/Basic/Targets/AArch64.cpp has:
>>>> 
>>>> if (HasBFloat16) {
>>>>   Builder.defineMacro("__ARM_FEATURE_BF16", "1");
>>>>   Builder.defineMacro("__ARM_FEATURE_BF16_VECTOR_ARITHMETIC", "1");
>>>>   Builder.defineMacro("__ARM_BF16_FORMAT_ALTERNATIVE", "1");
>>>> }
>>>> 
>>>> which suggests bf16 support has 32-bit support (even if it is armv8
>>>> 32-bit). Looking for AArch32 state in:
>>>> 
>>>> DDI0487K_a_a-profile_architecture_reference_manual.pdf
>>>> 
>>>> it says (via the AArch32 column of a table):
>>>> 
>>>> BF16 Supported if FEAT_AA32BF16 is implemented.
>>>> 
>>>> Looks to me like the removal of arm_bf16.h for llvm target ARM
>>>> was incorrect.
>>> 
>>> The commit to the port simply refects changes upstream which made
>>> arm_br16.h aarch64-only.  It was done in a massive commit (a70cf56d20b956)
>>> so may well have been wrong and no one notices because they always build
>>> all the backends.
>> 
>> Hmm.
>> 
>> My build in a armv7 context with arm_bf16.h listed was of:
>> 
>> ---Begin OPTIONS List---
>> ===> The following configuration options are available for llvm19-19.1.0.r3:
>>     BE_AMDGPU=off: AMD GPU backend (required by mesa)
>>     BE_WASM=off: WebAssembly backend (required by firefox via wasi)
>>     CLANG=on: Build clang
>>     DOCS=on: Build and/or install documentation
>>     EXTRAS=on: Extra clang tools
>>     LIT=on: Install lit and FileCheck test tools
>>     LLD=on: Install lld, the LLVM linker
>>     LLDB=on: Install lldb, the LLVM debugger
>>     PYCLANG=on: Install python bindings to libclang
>>     STATIC_LIBS=on: Install static libraries (does not effect sanitizers)
>> ====> Options available for the single BACKENDS: you have to select exactly one of them
>>     BE_FREEBSD=off: Backends for FreeBSD architectures
>>     BE_NATIVE=on: Backend(s) for this architecture (ARM)
>>     BE_STANDARD=off: All non-experimental backends
>> ===> Use 'make config' to modify these settings
>> ---End OPTIONS List---
>> 
>> Note the ARM (no AArch64).
>> 
>> It built just fine. When I looked at how arm_bf16.h is provided,
>> it looked to be built via llvm tools and is not direct source
>> code that as been committed. It looked to me like arm_bf16.h for
>> an ARM build got ARM (32-bit) content. (But I'm not expert.)
>> 
>> The firefox build attempt found the file and got no complaints
>> about using the file. Sure looked to me like it just worked
>> when it is also listed in _BE_INCS_ARM .
> 
> It's weird that it's getting installed at all. I'm rather confused. Could
> you do a `make check-plist` and send me the output?

The below is about my personal builds in this time frame,
the ones that found and used the arm_b16.h file in a armv7
context . . .

Reminder/notice of context: I was experimenting with trying to
build firefox to see if BE_WASM being enabled was remotely worth
it for now. (It is not: firefox is no where near buildable for
armv7 at this point. BE_WASM just wastes cycles and such.)

firefox uses '#include <arm_bf16.h>' for armv7 builds and gets an
error about it being missing if it is not installed by the llvm
that it is using. So I had experimented with use of reverting the
_BE_INCS_ARM related commit material at issue, resulting in:

-_BE_INCS_ARM=          arm_cde.h arm_fp16.h arm_mve.h arm_neon.h arm_sme.h \
+_BE_INCS_ARM=          arm_bf16.h arm_cde.h arm_fp16.h arm_mve.h arm_neon.h arm_sme.h \

This was in order to see if such would allow firefox to get past
the specific error. It did get past that error point without any
complaints.

Does that addition of arm_bf16.h to _BE_INCS_ARM remove the
confusion?

Attempting to use 'make check-plist' started trying to build and
install a bunch of stuff so I stopped it. I do not plan on
rebuilding the llvm18 prerequisites via make. I've uninstalled
and cleaned out what installed before I stopped it.  (Nearly all
my build activity is via poudriere-devel instead of the likes of
use of make or portmaster.)


===
Mark Millard
marklmi at yahoo.com