packages/btrfs-progs: fix build issues under musl
PATCH 1/1 packages/btrfs-progs: fix build issues under musl
Fixes http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/b97/b97f1e9cd459da96e3e1680bb7c43d8103ab12c2/
Caused by assumptions around __GLIBC__ and header inclusion.
--- ...s-compilation-errors-when-using-musl-libc.patch | 91 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 91 insertions(+) create mode 100644 package/btrfs-progs/0001-btrfs-progs-compilation-errors-when-using-musl-libc.patch
package/btrfs-progs/0001-btrfs-progs-compilation-errors-when-using-musl-libc.patch new file +91 -0
@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@ +From 8905b451014fce570984335f153f3977e94f0115 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From: Brendan Heading <[email protected]> +Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 19:27:26 +0100 +Subject: [PATCH 1/1] btrfs-progs: compilation errors when using musl libc + +- limits.h must be included to pick up PATH_MAX. +- remove double declaration of BTRFS_DISABLE_BACKTRACE + +kerncompat.h assumed that if __GLIBC__ was not defined, +it could safely define BTRFS_DISABLE_BACKTRACE, however this can be +defined by the configure script. Added a check to ensure it is not +defined first. + +Upstream-status: submitted + +See : http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/46771 + +Signed-off-by: Brendan Heading <[email protected]> +--- + cmds-inspect.c | 1 + + cmds-receive.c | 1 + + cmds-scrub.c | 1 + + cmds-send.c | 1 + + kerncompat.h | 2 ++ + 5 files changed, 6 insertions(+) + +diff --git a/cmds-inspect.c b/cmds-inspect.c +index 71451fe..9712581 100644 +--- a/cmds-inspect.c ++++ b/cmds-inspect.c +@@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ + #include <stdint.h> + #include <sys/ioctl.h> + #include <errno.h> ++#include <limits.h> + + #include "kerncompat.h" + #include "ioctl.h" +diff --git a/cmds-receive.c b/cmds-receive.c +index 071bea9..d4b3103 100644 +--- a/cmds-receive.c ++++ b/cmds-receive.c +@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ + #include <wait.h> + #include <assert.h> + #include <getopt.h> ++#include <limits.h> + + #include <sys/stat.h> + #include <sys/types.h> +diff --git a/cmds-scrub.c b/cmds-scrub.c +index b7aa809..5a85dc4 100644 +--- a/cmds-scrub.c ++++ b/cmds-scrub.c +@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ + #include <ctype.h> + #include <signal.h> + #include <stdarg.h> ++#include <limits.h> + + #include "ctree.h" + #include "ioctl.h" +diff --git a/cmds-send.c b/cmds-send.c +index 20bba18..a0b7f95 100644 +--- a/cmds-send.c ++++ b/cmds-send.c +@@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ + #include <assert.h> + #include <getopt.h> + #include <uuid/uuid.h> ++#include <limits.h> + + #include "ctree.h" + #include "ioctl.h" +diff --git a/kerncompat.h b/kerncompat.h +index 5d92856..7c627ba 100644 +--- a/kerncompat.h ++++ b/kerncompat.h +@@ -33,7 +33,9 @@ + #include <features.h> + + #ifndef __GLIBC__ ++#ifndef BTRFS_DISABLE_BACKTRACE + #define BTRFS_DISABLE_BACKTRACE ++#endif + #define __always_inline __inline __attribute__ ((__always_inline__)) + #endif + +-- +2.4.3 +
Signature · 1 line
2.4.3
PATCH 1/1 packages/btrfs-progs: fix build issues under musl
Dear Brendan Heading,
package/btrfs-progs/0001-btrfs-progs-compilation-errors-when-using-musl-libc.patch line 85
Quoted 11 lines · Brendan Heading
package/btrfs-progs/0001-btrfs-progs-compilation-errors-when-using-musl-libc.patch new file +11
-0+diff --git a/kerncompat.h b/kerncompat.h +index 5d92856..7c627ba 100644 +--- a/kerncompat.h ++++ b/kerncompat.h +@@ -33,7 +33,9 @@ + #include <features.h> + + #ifndef __GLIBC__ ++#ifndef BTRFS_DISABLE_BACKTRACE + #define BTRFS_DISABLE_BACKTRACE ++#endif
While this is a quick hack that works, I think it's really nothing more than a hack. I've implemented what I believe is a better solution, can you look at:
https://github.com/tpetazzoni/btrfs-progs/commits/configure-improvements
(last two commits)
Basically, this proposal uses configure.ac properly to detect backtrace support.
Can you check if that continues to work fine with glibc and musl, and if so, submit the patches upstream?
Thanks a lot!
Thomas
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
PATCH 1/1 packages/btrfs-progs: fix build issues under musl
Quoted 4 lines
Can you check if that continues to work fine with glibc and musl, and if so, submit the patches upstream?
Thanks a lot!
Sure. I will make a buildroot patch too.
Brendan
PATCH 1/1 packages/btrfs-progs: fix build issues under musl
In reply to Thomas PetazzoniQuoted 5 lines
While this is a quick hack that works, I think it's really nothing more than a hack. I've implemented what I believe is a better solution, can you look at:
https://github.com/tpetazzoni/btrfs-progs/commits/configure-improvements
[..]
Quoted 2 lines
Can you check if that continues to work fine with glibc and musl, and if so, submit the patches upstream?
Thomas,
Unfortunately things moved a bit quickly - I'd submitted my patch to btrfs-progs yesterday and it was accepted earlier this morning before I had a chance to tell them about your more comprehensive approach.
Your inline patch had one small typo:
=============================
kerncompat.h +1 -1
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@#include <features.h> -#ifdef HAVE_ALWAYS_INLINE +#ifndef HAVE_ALWAYS_INLINE #define __always_inline __inline __attribute__ ((__always_inline__))#endif
=============================
Also, the build still requires that limits.h is included, but that was not in the scope of what you were doing.
Therefore I propose to add three patches to buildroot - your two (with the #ifndef fixed), plus one for limits.h.
For the upstream, I will modify your patch slightly so that it reverts the relevant three-line part of my previous patch. OK ?
regards
Brendan
PATCH 1/1 packages/btrfs-progs: fix build issues under musl
Dear Brendan Heading,
Quoted 10 lines · Brendan Heading
Unfortunately things moved a bit quickly - I'd submitted my patch to btrfs-progs yesterday and it was accepted earlier this morning before I had a chance to tell them about your more comprehensive approach.
Your inline patch had one small typo:
=============================
kerncompat.h line 36
Quoted 6 lines
kerncompat.h +1
-1@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@#include <features.h> -#ifdef HAVE_ALWAYS_INLINE +#ifndef HAVE_ALWAYS_INLINE #define __always_inline __inline __attribute__ ((__always_inline__))
Humm, in fact my patch is wrong. So what they were doing is:
#ifndef __GLIBC__
#define __always_inline __inline __attribute__ ((__always_inline__)) #endif
So in fact they are not testing that __always_inline__ is a valid gcc function attribute.
They are defining __always_inline as a shortcut for marking a function as always inline. This shortcut is defined by glibc, but not by other C libraries, so they are doing it manually.
So, I think my patch should be adapted. You need to:
* Remove the m4/ax_gcc_func_attribute.m4 file, revert my .gitignore change and remove the added AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR([m4]).
* Add AC_CHECK_DECLS([__always_inline]) in configure.ac, and do #ifndef HAVE_DECL___ALWAYS_INLINE in kerncompat.h.
It will in fact make the patch a lot simpler, which is good.
Thanks!
Thomas
Signature · 3 lines
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
PATCH 1/1 packages/btrfs-progs: fix build issues under musl
Quoted 9 lines
So, I think my patch should be adapted. You need to:
* Remove the m4/ax_gcc_func_attribute.m4 file, revert my .gitignore change and remove the added
AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR([m4]).* Add
AC_CHECK_DECLS([__always_inline])in configure.ac, and do #ifndefHAVE_DECL___ALWAYS_INLINEinkerncompat.h.It will in fact make the patch a lot simpler, which is good.
Thomas,
Tested with both the autobuild config (musl) and Linaro 2014.9, builds fine. Forwarding the buildroot patches now, then I'll look at submitting them upstream.
regards
Brendan