Build failure on armhf

Build failure on armhf

[Andreas Enge]

Hello,

numactl fails to build on armhf:
   http://hydra.gnu.org/build/866208/log/raw
with the following error message:
syscall.c:113:2: error: #error "Add syscalls for your architecture or update kernel headers"
 #error "Add syscalls for your architecture or update kernel headers"

Is this a known limitation? If yes, could it maybe be detected during the
call to "configure"?

Andreas

Re: Build failure on armhf

[Filipe Brandenburger]

Hi Andreas,

On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 5:57 AM, Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> wrote:
> numactl fails to build on armhf:
>    http://hydra.gnu.org/build/866208/log/raw
> with the following error message:
> syscall.c:113:2: error: #error "Add syscalls for your architecture or update kernel headers"
>  #error "Add syscalls for your architecture or update kernel headers"
>
> Is this a known limitation?

So syscall.c defines the syscall numbers for syscalls such as
set_mempolicy, migrate_pages, etc. The syscalls numbers are different
on different Linux platforms, so it's only currently defined for a
handful of platforms.

As the error message says, if you find that error, maybe you should
consider adding the syscall numbers for your platform there?

> If yes, could it maybe be detected during the
> call to "configure"?

The detection is fairly complex, it mainly depends on compiler macros
being defined for your platform. Furthermore, adding platform
detection code to configure would probably create duplication, in that
both configure.ac and syscalls.c would need to be updated to add
support for a new platform.

What is the problem you are trying to solve?

Cheers,
Filipe

Re: Build failure on armhf

[Andi Kleen]

> What is the problem you are trying to solve?

I guess he wants to build on that platform.

Adding the numbers to syscall.c is also only needed if the necessary
syscall numbers are missing in asm/unistd.h. It really was originally
only for ancient distributions where the headers predate numa support.
So updating that may also help.

If your headers don't have numa support at all it may be also possible
that the platform simply doesn't support NUMA. In that case building
numactl is pointless.

-Andi

Re: Build failure on armhf

[Andreas Enge]

Hello,

and sorry for taking my time in replying around the Christmas holidays.

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 08:45:04PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> I guess he wants to build on that platform.

Indeed. However, my situation is a bit special: I am doing QA work on the Guix
GNU/Linux distribution and noticed numactl did not compile. Personally, I am
not using the software...

> If your headers don't have numa support at all it may be also possible
> that the platform simply doesn't support NUMA. In that case building
> numactl is pointless.

So I understand that numactl is not supported on armhf? In that case,
we can simply disable its build on this architecture.

Andreas