linux-next: build failure after merge of the drm-xe tree

Hi all,

After merging the drm-xe tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig) failed. Unfortunately I fat fingered things and deleted the logs, assuming the issue remains I'll report proprely tomorrow. I'm fairly sure the issue was due to:

5ff004fdc7377 (drm/xe/rtp: Add struct types for RTP tables)

with some of the fields in rtp_to_sr_cases[] haiving non-const values. Sorry about the lack of clarity here.

I have merged the version from next-20260602 instead.

Quoted 9 lines · Mark Brown

Hi all,

After merging the drm-xe tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig) failed.  Unfortunately I fat fingered things and deleted
the logs, assuming the issue remains I'll report proprely tomorrow.  I'm
fairly sure the issue was due to:

Quoted 7 lines

  5ff004fdc7377 (drm/xe/rtp: Add struct types for RTP tables)

with some of the fields in rtp_to_sr_cases[] haiving non-const values.
Sorry about the lack of clarity here.

I have merged the version from next-20260602 instead.

The error message is:

/tmp/next/build/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_hw_engine.c:361:6: error:
initializer element is not a compile-time constant
  361 |                                  blit_cctl_val,
      |                                  ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ /tmp/next/build/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_rtp.h:461:41: note: expanded from macro 'XE_RTP_ACTIONS'
  461 |                 XE_RTP_PASTE_FOREACH(ACTION_, COMMA, (__VA_ARGS__))     \
      |
^~~~~~~~~~~ /tmp/next/build/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_rtp_helpers.h:56:108: note:
expanded from macro 'XE_RTP_PASTE_FOREACH'
   56 | #define XE_RTP_PASTE_FOREACH(prefix_, sep_, args_) _XE_RTP_CONCAT(PASTE_, COUNT_ARGS args_)(prefix_, sep_, args_)
|
                                        ^~~~~ /tmp/next/build/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_rtp_helpers.h:57:80: note:
expanded from macro 'XE_RTP_PASTE_1'
   57 | #define XE_RTP_PASTE_1(prefix_, sep_, args_) _XE_RTP_CONCAT(prefix_, FIRST_ARG args_)

|
            ^~~~~
note: (skipping 11 expansions in backtrace; use -fmacro-backtrace- limit=0 to see all) /tmp/next/build/include/linux/compiler.h:204:39: note: expanded from macro '__is_array'
  204 | #define __is_array(a)           (!__same_type((a), &(a)[0])) |                                                ^ /tmp/next/build/include/linux/compiler_types.h:610:63: note: expanded from macro '__same_type'
  610 | #define __same_type(a, b) __builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(a), typeof(b))
      |
^
/tmp/next/build/include/linux/compiler.h:200:84: note: expanded from macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG'
  200 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg, ...) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);}))

|
                ^ /tmp/next/build/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_hw_engine.c:416:9: error:
initializer element is not a compile-time constant
  416 |                                            ring_cmd_cctl_val, |                                            ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ /tmp/next/build/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_rtp.h:461:41: note: expanded from macro 'XE_RTP_ACTIONS'
  461 |                 XE_RTP_PASTE_FOREACH(ACTION_, COMMA, (__VA_ARGS__))     \
      |
^~~~~~~~~~~ /tmp/next/build/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_rtp_helpers.h:56:108: note:
expanded from macro 'XE_RTP_PASTE_FOREACH'
   56 | #define XE_RTP_PASTE_FOREACH(prefix_, sep_, args_) _XE_RTP_CONCAT(PASTE_, COUNT_ARGS args_)(prefix_, sep_, args_)
|
                                        ^~~~~ /tmp/next/build/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_rtp_helpers.h:57:80: note:
expanded from macro 'XE_RTP_PASTE_1'
   57 | #define XE_RTP_PASTE_1(prefix_, sep_, args_) _XE_RTP_CONCAT(prefix_, FIRST_ARG args_)

|
            ^~~~~
note: (skipping 11 expansions in backtrace; use -fmacro-backtrace- limit=0 to see all) /tmp/next/build/include/linux/compiler.h:204:39: note: expanded from macro '__is_array'
  204 | #define __is_array(a)           (!__same_type((a), &(a)[0])) |                                                ^ /tmp/next/build/include/linux/compiler_types.h:610:63: note: expanded from macro '__same_type'
  610 | #define __same_type(a, b) __builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(a), typeof(b))
      |
^

/tmp/next/build/include/linux/compiler.h:200:84: note: expanded from macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG'
  200 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg, ...) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);}))

|
                ^
2 errors generated.

Quoted 4 lines · Mark Brown

/tmp/next/build/include/linux/compiler.h:200:84: note: expanded from macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG'
  200 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg, ...) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);}))

Funny, I see no build errors with drm-xe-next allmodconfig. What compiler is being used? Any sha1 of the drm-xe-next top commit you're testing?

Quoted 8 lines · Thomas Hellström

Quoted 5 lines · Mark Brown

/tmp/next/build/include/linux/compiler.h:200:84: note: expanded from
macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG'
  200 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg, ...) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);}))

Quoted 4 lines

Funny, I see no build errors with drm-xe-next allmodconfig. What compiler is being used? Any sha1 of the drm-xe-next top commit you're
testing?

This is after merging the tree into -next, that'd be on top of 09b893db4d9e68c2679e76624d420f438f8d3e98 for today (not published yet).
It's possible it's some interaction with other trees (like the main drm
tree) and works as a standalone thing, it wasn't obviously that from a
quick investigation.  The toolchain is gcc from Debian stable.

Quoted 14 lines · Mark Brown

Quoted 8 lines · Thomas Hellström

Quoted 5 lines · Mark Brown

/tmp/next/build/include/linux/compiler.h:200:84: note: expanded from
macro '__BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG'
  200 | #define __BUILD_BUG_ON_ZERO_MSG(e, msg, ...) ((int)sizeof(struct {_Static_assert(!(e), msg);}))

Quoted 4 lines

Funny, I see no build errors with drm-xe-next allmodconfig. What compiler is being used? Any sha1 of the drm-xe-next top commit you're
testing?

Quoted 8 lines

This is after merging the tree into -next, that'd be on top of 09b893db4d9e68c2679e76624d420f438f8d3e98 for today (not published yet).
It's possible it's some interaction with other trees (like the main drm
tree) and works as a standalone thing, it wasn't obviously that from a
quick investigation.  The toolchain is gcc from Debian stable.

So I merged drm-xe-next into next-20260603, and no build errors neither with gcc nor clang.

AI says it's confident that the error report is from clang, based on -fmacro-backtrace-limit suggestion and the "2 errors generated." summary, and suggests this might be an older clang version limitation?

So I merged drm-xe-next into next-20260603, and no build errors neither with gcc nor clang.

AI says it's confident that the error report is from clang, based on -fmacro-backtrace-limit suggestion and the "2 errors generated." summary, and suggests this might be an older clang version limitation?