qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target-arm: Make the counter tick relative to


From: Andrew Jeffery
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target-arm: Make the counter tick relative to cntfrq
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2019 14:27:08 +0930
User-agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.6-808-g930a1a1-fmstable-20190805v2


On Fri, 9 Aug 2019, at 13:36, address@hidden wrote:
> Patchew URL: https://patchew.org/QEMU/address@hidden/
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This series failed build test on s390x host. Please find the details below.
> 
> === TEST SCRIPT BEGIN ===
> #!/bin/bash
> # Testing script will be invoked under the git checkout with
> # HEAD pointing to a commit that has the patches applied on top of "base"
> # branch
> set -e
> 
> echo
> echo "=== ENV ==="
> env
> 
> echo
> echo "=== PACKAGES ==="
> rpm -qa
> 
> echo
> echo "=== UNAME ==="
> uname -a
> 
> CC=$HOME/bin/cc
> INSTALL=$PWD/install
> BUILD=$PWD/build
> mkdir -p $BUILD $INSTALL
> SRC=$PWD
> cd $BUILD
> $SRC/configure --cc=$CC --prefix=$INSTALL
> make -j4
> # XXX: we need reliable clean up
> # make check -j4 V=1
> make install
> === TEST SCRIPT END ===
> 
>   CC      aarch64_be-linux-user/target/arm/arm-semi.o
>   CC      aarch64_be-linux-user/target/arm/helper.o
> /var/tmp/patchew-tester-tmp-hkd7ua1n/src/target/arm/helper.c: In 
> function ‘gt_virt_cnt_read’:
> /var/tmp/patchew-tester-tmp-hkd7ua1n/src/target/arm/helper.c:2921:12: 
> error: implicit declaration of function ‘gt_calc_tick’ 
> [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>  2921 |     return gt_calc_tick(env, cpu_get_clock());
>       |            ^~~~~~~~~~~~
> /var/tmp/patchew-tester-tmp-hkd7ua1n/src/target/arm/helper.c:2921:12: 
> error: nested extern declaration of ‘gt_calc_tick’ 
> [-Werror=nested-externs]
> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
> make[1]: *** [/var/tmp/patchew-tester-tmp-hkd7ua1n/src/rules.mak:69: 
> target/arm/helper.o] Error 1
> make: *** [Makefile:472: aarch64_be-linux-user/all] Error 2
> 

Ah, I missed that I put the implementation inside the
#ifndef CONFIG_USER_ONLY` block. Maybe we can just not do the scaling
for userspace anyway?

Andrew



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]