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 Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 12:09:55PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote:
> On Sep 3, 2024, at 11:12, Brooks Davis <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 10:05:06PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote:
> >> On Aug 30, 2024, at 21:26, Mark Millard <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On Aug 30, 2024, at 20:33, Mark Millard <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> [Subject was retitled.]
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Aug 30, 2024, at 16:24, Mark Millard <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
> >>>>> Commit:     Jan Beich <[email protected]>
> >>>>> 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?

Thanks,
Brooks