2.6.0-test10 : compile error in /fs/proc/array.c

2.6.0-test10 : compile error in /fs/proc/array.c

[mp3project]

Ave people

My redhat 7.3 compiler (gcc 2.96--113) is still complaining about that 
file.

make[1]: `arch/i386/kernel/asm-offsets.s' is up to date.
  CHK     include/linux/compile.h
  CC      fs/proc/array.o
fs/proc/array.c: In function `proc_pid_stat':
fs/proc/array.c:398: Unrecognizable insn:
(insn/i 1332 1663 1657 (parallel[ 
            (set (reg:SI 0 eax)
                (asm_operands ("") ("=a") 0[ 
                        (reg:DI 1 edx)
                    ] 
                    [ 
                        (asm_input:DI ("A"))
                    ]  ("include/linux/times.h") 38))
            (set (reg:SI 1 edx)
                (asm_operands ("") ("=d") 1[ 
                        (reg:DI 1 edx)
                    ] 
                    [ 
                        (asm_input:DI ("A"))
                    ]  ("include/linux/times.h") 38))
            (clobber (reg:QI 19 dirflag))
            (clobber (reg:QI 18 fpsr))
            (clobber (reg:QI 17 flags))
        ] ) -1 (insn_list 1326 (nil))
    (nil))
fs/proc/array.c:398: confused by earlier errors, bailing out
make[2]: *** [fs/proc/array.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [fs/proc] Error 2
make: *** [fs] Error 2


It's a known error and various patches are floating around on lkml.

Is this
a)a post 2.6.0 item
b)a case of fix the compiler,we ain't gonna work around.

Patching the source is not difficult to do,but it would be nice if 
vanilla 2.6.0 is gonna compile cleanly without patching on redhat 7.3 

Greetz Mu
 

Re: 2.6.0-test10 : compile error in /fs/proc/array.c

[Matt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2025 bytes --]

appy this patch , it was posted here on the lkml before. Not quite sure who 
posted it first , but it works.

Matt H.


>On Monday 24 November 2003 12:29 pm, mp3project@sarijopen.student.utwente.nl 
wrote:
> Ave people
>
> My redhat 7.3 compiler (gcc 2.96--113) is still complaining about that
> file.
>
> make[1]: `arch/i386/kernel/asm-offsets.s' is up to date.
>   CHK     include/linux/compile.h
>   CC      fs/proc/array.o
> fs/proc/array.c: In function `proc_pid_stat':
> fs/proc/array.c:398: Unrecognizable insn:
> (insn/i 1332 1663 1657 (parallel[
>             (set (reg:SI 0 eax)
>                 (asm_operands ("") ("=a") 0[
>                         (reg:DI 1 edx)
>                     ]
>                     [
>                         (asm_input:DI ("A"))
>                     ]  ("include/linux/times.h") 38))
>             (set (reg:SI 1 edx)
>                 (asm_operands ("") ("=d") 1[
>                         (reg:DI 1 edx)
>                     ]
>                     [
>                         (asm_input:DI ("A"))
>                     ]  ("include/linux/times.h") 38))
>             (clobber (reg:QI 19 dirflag))
>             (clobber (reg:QI 18 fpsr))
>             (clobber (reg:QI 17 flags))
>         ] ) -1 (insn_list 1326 (nil))
>     (nil))
> fs/proc/array.c:398: confused by earlier errors, bailing out
> make[2]: *** [fs/proc/array.o] Error 1
> make[1]: *** [fs/proc] Error 2
> make: *** [fs] Error 2
>
>
> It's a known error and various patches are floating around on lkml.
>
> Is this
> a)a post 2.6.0 item
> b)a case of fix the compiler,we ain't gonna work around.
>
> Patching the source is not difficult to do,but it would be nice if
> vanilla 2.6.0 is gonna compile cleanly without patching on redhat 7.3
>
> Greetz Mu
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[-- Attachment #2: 501-gcc-2.96-array-fix.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 1826 bytes --]

On Tuesday October 21st 2003 at 15:52 uur Marco Roeland wrote:

> > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=106651554401143&w=2
> > 
> > It's supposed to fix test8 compile with gcc-2.96 for RedHat 7.x.
> 
> Perhaps if the huge sprintf with 40+ arguments (fs/proc/array.c, line 346)
> amongst which several trinary operators, were to be split up into several
> parts, might that not solve the problem more elegantly?

Does this compile (and work) for any of you friendly RedHat 7.[23] users? 
In 2.6.0-test8 yet another argument was added to the monstrous sprintf.
Perhaps this was just the droplet to overflow gcc-2.96's buckets? Here we
split it into 3 distinct parts.

--- linux-2.6.0-test8/fs/proc/array.c.orig	2003-10-21 16:18:40.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.0-test8/fs/proc/array.c	2003-10-21 16:24:42.000000000 +0200
@@ -343,9 +343,7 @@
 	read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
 	ppid = task->pid ? task->real_parent->pid : 0;
 	read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
-	res = sprintf(buffer,"%d (%s) %c %d %d %d %d %d %lu %lu \
-%lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %ld %ld %ld %ld %d %ld %llu %lu %ld %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu \
-%lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %d %d %lu %lu\n",
+	res = sprintf(buffer,"%d (%s) %c %d %d %d %d %d %lu %lu ",
 		task->pid,
 		task->comm,
 		state,
@@ -355,7 +353,8 @@
 		tty_nr,
 		tty_pgrp,
 		task->flags,
-		task->min_flt,
+		task->min_flt);
+	res += sprintf(buffer + res,"%lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %ld %ld %ld %ld %d %ld %llu %lu %ld %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu ",
 		task->cmin_flt,
 		task->maj_flt,
 		task->cmaj_flt,
@@ -375,7 +374,8 @@
 		mm ? mm->start_code : 0,
 		mm ? mm->end_code : 0,
 		mm ? mm->start_stack : 0,
-		esp,
+		esp);
+	res += sprintf(buffer + res,"%lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %lu %d %d %lu %lu\n",
 		eip,
 		/* The signal information here is obsolete.
 		 * It must be decimal for Linux 2.0 compatibility.

-