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 Aug 31, 2024, at 10:43, Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Aug 31, 2024, at 00:16, Michal Meloun <mmel@freebsd.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 31.08.2024 8:29, Mark Millard wrote:
>>> On Aug 30, 2024, at 22:05, Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> 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.
>>>> 
>>>>>> So I've put arm_bf16.h back into the llvm18 test context and sometime
>>>>>> after 3 hrs I should be able to report on a firefox build attempt with
>>>>>> the change (I hope).
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> So, it no longer failed for amd_bf16.h being missing.
>>> But it still has the lack-of OFlags::TMPFILE problem that stops the build.
>> 
>> See
>> lang/rust/files/armv7/patch-vendor_rustix_src_backend_libc_fs_syscalls.rs
>> for inspiration.  Unfortunately the exact patch depends on the rustx version, which changes a lot at this place.
> 
> As far as I can tell, for rust conditional compilation with the
> likes of (leading whitespace details might not have been
> preserved):
> 
>    #[cfg(all(unix, target_env = "gnu", not(any(target_os = "freebsd", target_os = "hurd"))))]
>     if oflags.contains(OFlags::TMPFILE) && crate::backend::if_glibc_is_less_than_2_25() {
>         return openat_via_syscall(dirfd, path, oflags, mode);
>     }
> 
> is not just textual preprocessing like #if . . . #endif in
> C/C++. It seems that the conditional source still gets some
> validation processing even though it will not generate any
> code.
> 
> If so, the error report indicates that freebsd is not getting
> a definition of the likes of OFlags::TMPFILE .
> 
> I do not know if freebsd should have a definition of
> OFlags::TMPFILE (and related) vs. not. If the definition
> should be present, the problem is not local to the 2
> blocks of code that are rejected. If the definition should
> not be present, then the technique for handling freebsd
> for armv7 is not valid and the fix might also not be
> local to the 2 blocks of code.
> 
> As I'm only trying to see if my armv7 builds can finish based
> on the limited effective process address space size, at some
> point I'll likely locally adjust the patching to cause
> "if false {" or some such that avoids the validation
> checking's rejection.
> 
> I have no intention of running firefox --and I have no armv7
> video context set up to do so.


I tried firefox-esr (still at 115.14.0) and it built for much
longer and then got:

/wrkdirs/usr/ports/www/firefox-esr/work/firefox-115.14.0/gfx/skia/skia/src/core/SkCpu.cpp:146:27: error: use of undeclared identifier 'getauxval'
  146 |         uint32_t hwcaps = getauxval(AT_HWCAP);
      |                           ^
1 error generated.

That is suggestive of arm7 firefox-esr having been broken
and unmaintained for a long time.


So I'm building firefox with the patching of:

third_party/rust/rustix/src/backend/libc/fs/syscalls.rs <http://syscalls.rs/>

in place and it has gotten past building that code.

. . . time goes by . . .

In my context it failed for:

rustc-LLVM ERROR: out of memory
Allocation failed
error: could not compile `gkrust` (lib)

So I can experiment some and see if I can change that status
in my context.


===
Mark Millard
marklmi at yahoo.com