Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We鈥檒l occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Port to Android #1442

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Apr 13, 2016
Merged

Port to Android #1442

merged 1 commit into from Apr 13, 2016

Conversation

modocache
Copy link
Collaborator

@modocache modocache commented Feb 25, 2016

What's in this pull request?

This adds an Android target for the stdlib. It is also the first example of cross-compiling outside of Darwin: a Linux host machine builds for an Android target.

Relevant mailing list discussions:

  1. https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-dev/Week-of-Mon-20151207/000171.html
  2. https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-dev/Week-of-Mon-20151214/000492.html

The Android variant of Swift may be built and tested using the following build-script invocation:

$ utils/build-script \
  -R \                                           # Build in ReleaseAssert mode.
  -T \                                           # Run all tests.
  --android \                                    # Build for Android.
  --android-deploy-device-path /data/local/tmp \ # Temporary directory on the device where Android tests are run.
  --android-ndk ~/android-ndk-r10e \             # Path to an Android NDK.
  --android-ndk-version 21 \
  --android-icu-uc ~/libicu-android/armeabi-v7a/libicuuc.so \
  --android-icu-uc-include ~/libicu-android/armeabi-v7a/icu/source/common \
  --android-icu-i18n ~/libicu-android/armeabi-v7a/libicui18n.so \
  --android-icu-i18n-include ~/libicu-android/armeabi-v7a/icu/source/i18n/

Android builds have the following dependencies, as can be seen in the build script invocation:

  1. An Android NDK of version 21 or greater, available to download here: http://developer.android.com/ndk/downloads/index.html.
  2. A libicu compatible with android-armv7. You may build your own by cloning https://github.com/SwiftAndroid/libiconv-libicu-android and running the build.sh script in that repository.

What's worth discussing about this pull request?

Continuous integration: I'd be thrilled to have this merged into the main Swift repository, but I don't want to dump a bunch of code that no one can maintain. I think CI is a very important part of maintaining a healthy build, but:

  1. An Android-compatible build of libicu is necessary to build for Android.
  2. An Android device (or possibly emulator) is necessary to run the Android tests.

Do either of those sound like something CI servers could be configured with? Or can someone help me think of alternatives--perhaps building libicu as part of the Swift build, as we do with ninja? #1398 includes some pkg-config logic that may be useful here.

FIXMEs: There are quite a few spots labeled "FIXME" that I could use some help with. Feedback welcome!


Thanks a ton to @zhuowei, who deserves the vast majority of the credit. I just tweaked a few things. 馃槉

if result != 0 {
preconditionFailure("execve() failed. errno: \(errno)")
}
_exit(126)
Copy link
Member

@weissi weissi Feb 25, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this has different semantics to posix_spawn. posix_spawn will give you a proper errno value if the spawn failed, this just exits the child process. I.e. spawning ["/bin/zsh", "-c", "exit 126;"] will be indistinguishable for the caller, right? It will trigger the preconditionFailure, no idea what that actually means.

I'd propose to open a separate pipe, called child2parent or so which will be fcntld to FD_CLOEXEC. That means if execve succeeds, it will be closed automatically and that means the parent will read EOF. If execve fails, we just write execve's errno to that pipe so the parent can read it and learns what went wrong in the child. So the parent waits until it can read, if it reads EOF (read returns 0) it knows, the child spawned successfully, if it reads anything else, it knows that this is execve's errno value and can return that to the caller. Does that make sense?

Here some pseudo-C code which will hopefully make clear what I mean:

[...]
} else if (pid == 0) {
    int err = fcntl(child2parent[1], F_SETFD, FD_CLOEXEC); /* This fd will be closed on exec */
    int errno_save = errno;
    if (err) {
       preconditionFailure("fcntl failed, errno: %d", errno_save);
       abort();
    }
    execve(...);
    errno_save = errno;
    /* execve returned, this is an error that we need to communicate back to the parent */
    ssize_t suc_write = write(child2parent[1], &errno_save, sizeof(typeof(errno)));
    errno_save = errno;
    if (suc_write > 0 && suc_write < sizeof(typeof(errno)));
        /* implement write retry ;) */
    } else if (suc_write == 0) {
        /* preconditionFailure("EOF?!"); */
        abort();
    } else if (suc_write < 0) {
        preconditionFailure("write failed, errno %d", errno_save);
        abort();
    }
    close(child2parent[1]);
}
[...]

Copy link
Collaborator

@gribozavr gribozavr Apr 6, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@modocache This great comment by @weissi is still valid, I think.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@modocache modocache Apr 11, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Finally getting around to this, sorry for the wait. @weissi, could you explain child2parent in greater detail? Would the child process file descriptors be duped to write to the parent pipe in some way? I think I'm missing something.

Copy link
Member

@weissi weissi Apr 11, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Don't worry about the wait, great work on this PR! So the reason we need child2parent is to communicate from child to parent.

There's basically two possible outcomes

  1. everything went fine
  2. there was an error in the child (for example file to execute not found, no permission or what not)

In both cases, it's crucial that the child can tell the parent. The easiest way on UNIX is to just open a pipe (child2parent) in the parent before the fork. Because file descriptors are forked as well, we will have a communication channel from the child to the parent after the fork. child2parent[0] is the reading end, so that's the file descriptor the parent keeps open. And child2parent[1] is the writing end, that's the fd the child keeps open. In other words, if the child writes something to child2parent[1], the parent will receive it on child2parent[0]. So far so good, now we have a communication facility.

If there was an error execveing in the child, we can just write the errno value that it got into child2parent[1] and the parent will know what exactly went wrong. For example if the file to be executed wasn't found, a ENOENT will be transmitted and the parent can fail appropriately.

The seemingly easier case is actually the harder: What to do if there was no error in the child, i.e. the child executed another process. Then execve succeeds and we replaced the process with some other binary. The file descriptor child2parent[1] will now still be open so we could put something in there which tells the parent that everything went fine. However, the program we executed probably doesn't know it's supposed to do that. The standard trick to get around this issue is to set the file descriptor child2parent[1] as FD_CLOEXEC. If FD_CLOEXEC is set, the file descriptor is closed by the OS kernel automatically if execve succeeds. That's perfect for us: If child2parent[1] is closed without anything ever being written to the pipe, the parent can now learn that execve has succeeded which is exactly the missing big.

So the logic in the parent will be

  1. try to read on parent2child[0]
    2a. if read returns 0 (meaning EOF), the parent knows everything went fine, the child successfully executed another program
    2b. if read returns some bytes, we know that something went wrong and the value that we read is the errno of the child that it got when trying to execute the other program. That's awesome as we now know in the parent what went wrong in the child :).

Hope this makes any sense, if not or if there are any questions left, feel free to ask.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@modocache modocache Apr 12, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thank you @weissi, your explanation was incredibly helpful! Thanks for so clearly explaining the problem, it made writing the code much easier. I have a working implementation that I will amend to this commit soon; I'm running the Android test suite from #1714 to confirm it all still works (looks good so far!).

(For those that are interested, there are seven failing tests when the stdlib is compiled for Android. Most are related to assumptions in the test expectations themselves.)

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@modocache modocache Apr 12, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OK, I've amended changes as per your comments, @weissi! Again, thanks a ton!

@1ace
Copy link

1ace commented Feb 25, 2016

First off, thank you for this awesome work!
I haven't read much of it yet, but I just wanted to mention one thing: I think you should try to separate changes in multiple commits as much as possible to make it more digestible. That will help reviewers by letting them focus on related changes before moving on to the next commit.

My personal rule is: if you make sense to be between those two changes (ie. have one but not the other), put them in separate commits. You should obviously order those commits in a way that ensures you don't use features before adding them. For instance, the last commit should be the one adding the new target to utils/build-script once everything else is ready.

@@ -0,0 +1,215 @@
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
Copy link
Collaborator

@gribozavr gribozavr Feb 25, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please don't duplicate these files. Can we find some way of reusing the Glibc overlay here, adding some #ifs into its source?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@modocache modocache Feb 25, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, I'll take another look at stdlib/public/Glibc/CMakeLists.txt. I think this should be possible. The difficult part is that since we're building for both Linux and Android at once, I'll need to use variables other than CMAKE_SYSTEM_NAME to determine which modulemap to copy. I'll try working on it some more, thanks!

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@modocache modocache Mar 11, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@gribozavr I've been trying to combine stdlib/public/Bionic and stdlib/public/Glibc.

stdlib/public/Glibc/CMakeLists.txt uses the host system name to either use a Linux or FreeBSD modulemap. I figure I can do something similar to use either a Linux or Android modulemap--but instead of using the host system name (which is always Linux when cross-compiling from Linux to Android), I produce a modulemap for each requested SDK and architecture:

# Unabbreviated source code here: https://gist.github.com/modocache/08e7aefd6c220d7750ac
foreach(SDK ${SWIFT_SDKS})
  foreach(arch ${SWIFT_SDK_${SDK}_ARCHITECTURES})
  string(TOLOWER "${SDK}" sdk)
  set(output_dir "${SWIFTLIB_DIR}/${sdk}/${arch}/glibc")

  # ...

  # Configure the modulemap based on the target. Each platform needs to
  # reference different headers, based on what's available in their glibc.
  set(modulemap_path "${CMAKE_CURRENT_BINARY_DIR}/${sdk}/${arch}/module.map")
  if("${SDK}" STREQUAL "FREEBSD")
    configure_file(module.freebsd.map.in "${modulemap_path}" @ONLY)
  elseif("${SDK}" STREQUAL "ANDROID")
    configure_file(module.android.map.in "${modulemap_path}" @ONLY)
  else()
    configure_file(module.map.in "${modulemap_path}" @ONLY)
  endif()

  # Create the lib/swift SDK/arch subdirectory and copy the configured
  # modulemap there.
  add_custom_command_target(unused_var
    COMMAND
        "${CMAKE_COMMAND}" "-E" "make_directory" "${output_dir}"
    COMMAND
        "${CMAKE_COMMAND}" "-E" "copy_if_different"
        "${modulemap_path}"
        "${output_dir}/module.map"
    CUSTOM_TARGET_NAME "copy_${sdk}_${arch}_glibc_module"
    OUTPUT "${output_dir}/module.map" "${output_dir}"
    DEPENDS "${modulemap_path}"
    COMMENT "Copying Glibc module to ${output_dir}")

  # Install the modulemap. When compiling Glibc, make sure
  # we use the correct module map for the current SDK.
  swift_install_in_component(stdlib
    FILES "${output_dir}/module.map"
    DESTINATION "${output_dir}")
  add_swift_library(swiftGlibc IS_SDK_OVERLAY
    ${sources}
    FILE_DEPENDS "copy_${sdk}_${arch}_glibc_module" "${output_dir}"
    TARGET_SDKS "${SDK}"
    SWIFT_COMPILE_FLAGS "-Xcc" "-fmodule-map-file=${modulemap_path}"
    INSTALL_IN_COMPONENT stdlib-experimental)
  endforeach()
endforeach()

The problem with this approach is that swiftc appears to expect that a Glibc modulemap exists at the following path:

/path/to/built/swift-linux-x86_64/lib/swift/glibc/module.map

Whereas the above CMake file places the module maps at two different paths, in order to avoid them overwriting one another:

/path/to/built/swift-linux-x86_64/lib/swift/linux/x86_64/glibc/module.map
/path/to/built/swift-linux-x86_64/lib/swift/android/armv7/glibc/module.map

This causes the following failure to occur when running tests that import Glibc:

<unknown>:0: error: missing required module 'SwiftGlibc'

Placing either one of these modulemaps at the expected path lib/swift/glibc/module.map gets the tests to pass for that target. That is, copying the Linux modulemap ensures the Linux build succeeds (and Android fails), and copying the Android modulemap causes Android to succeed and Linux to fail.

I'm not sure what the significance of the /path/to/built/swift-linux-x86_64/lib/swift/glibc/module.map path is, or how to hook up the compiler to use the SDK/arch subdirectory path lib/swift/android/armv7/glibc/module.map instead.

Any suggestions? I've been banging my head against this for a while, so any help would be greatly appreciated! 馃檱

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@modocache modocache Mar 14, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OK, managed to figure this one out: #1679 -- I'd definitely appreciate feedback on that approach! 馃檱

@modocache
Copy link
Collaborator Author

modocache commented Feb 25, 2016

Thanks for the feedback, @1ace! I agree: this work depends on #1396, #1410, #1426, #1395, #1334, which I've issued separately to make them easier to review. Unfortunately, GitHub falls apart with a dependent stack of commits, such as this pull request would end up being. I think you'll find other ports, such as Cygwin #1108, end up being similarly large.

The problem is that all of these changes are directly related to Android. Take the os(Android) definition, for example: I don't think it would make sense for the Swift maintainers to merge a pull request that added #if os(Android) ... #endif before Swift can even be built for Android. Phabricator would allow users to specify that the commit adding os(Android) is dependent upon the commit that adds Android options to CMakeLists.txt, and so forth. GitHub has no such system of specifying dependencies, and encourages large pull requests like this one.

Of course, if the review unearths more pieces I can split out into separate pull requests, I'll definitely do so! 馃憤

@@ -8,6 +8,9 @@
// <rdar://problem/24357067> The compiler never finishes compiling validation-test/stdlib/CollectionType.swift.gyb in -O
// REQUIRES: swift_test_mode_optimize_none

// FIXME: This test takes too long to complete on Android.
// UNSUPPORTED: OS=linux-androideabi
Copy link
Collaborator

@gribozavr gribozavr Feb 25, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there a way we could split it up? Maybe something like validation-test/stdlib/Slice?

@avaidyam
Copy link

avaidyam commented Feb 25, 2016

@modocache @zhuowei @ephemer Awesome job! I've been watching this since possibly day one. 馃憤 :shipit: 馃槃

program_name))
return 1

return execute_on_device(executable_path, executable_arguments, True)
Copy link
Collaborator

@gribozavr gribozavr Feb 25, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In our experience, executing tests on device without limiting concurrency will usually oversubscribe the device and will lead to spurious failures (out of memory issues etc.) That's because the number of device cores is typically much smaller than the number of cores on the host where lit is running.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@modocache modocache Feb 25, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah yes, very true! One hacky solution would be to limit the number of parallel lit tests on Android. I'm sure I could find a way to do this in utils/build-script-impl or test/lit.cfg. I may even be able to query the number of device cores. Is this close to what you had in mind?

Copy link
Collaborator

@gribozavr gribozavr Feb 25, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That would unnecessarily limit the parallelism for running host (compiler) tests. What I was thinking about is adding a persistent server that would be responsible for device communication, and have %target-run be a thin client that just asks the server to run a certain command. The server would throttle (or possibly load balance over multiple devices!) as appropriate.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@modocache modocache Feb 25, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This would be awesome. I assume we may use it to handle iOS/tvOS host tests as well some day?

One thought: should I make two pull requests? One to get Android building, and another to get its tests running and passing?

Copy link
Collaborator

@gribozavr gribozavr Feb 25, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, that'd likely make things easier.

@gribozavr
Copy link
Collaborator

gribozavr commented Feb 25, 2016

@swift-ci Please smoke test

@gribozavr
Copy link
Collaborator

gribozavr commented Feb 25, 2016

@modocache There seem to be build issues on Linux x86_64, please take a look when you have a moment.

@jckarter
Copy link
Member

jckarter commented Feb 25, 2016

Looks like <mutex> is missing from the target C++ standard library:

In file included from /home/buildnode/jenkins/workspace/swift-PR-Linux/swift/stdlib/public/runtime/HeapObject.cpp:17:
/home/buildnode/jenkins/workspace/swift-PR-Linux/swift/include/swift/Basic/Lazy.h:19:10: fatal error: 'mutex' file not found
#include <mutex>
         ^

@DCRichards
Copy link

DCRichards commented Feb 25, 2016

this is really cool, I've never seen a 52 file change commit though, good lord!

@modocache
Copy link
Collaborator Author

modocache commented Feb 25, 2016

I'm working on addressing the feedback--thanks so much for the review, @gribozavr!

In the meantime, if anyone out there wants to help with this pull request, here's the output from the test suite: https://gist.github.com/modocache/48babfa768d495806116. Six tests are failing.

Some of those failures, like IRGen/objc_simd.sil, could be addressed outside of this pull request (for that test specifically, check out some of my notes in SwiftAndroid#16).

@lattner
Copy link
Collaborator

lattner commented Feb 25, 2016

@modocache This is really awesome to see, thank you for working on it. Per the previous comment, if you can split this up into smaller PR's, that will make it easier to review and merge piecemeal.

@practicalswift
Copy link
Contributor

practicalswift commented Feb 25, 2016

@modocache Excellent stuff! Keep those great contributions coming 馃憤

@unsign3d
Copy link

unsign3d commented Feb 25, 2016

Excellent work, I'm looking forword to use it o.o

@b3ll
Copy link

b3ll commented Feb 26, 2016

馃帀

Keep up the great work @modocache! :D

@pbassut
Copy link

pbassut commented Feb 26, 2016

Great work! @modocache

@wx-chevalier
Copy link

wx-chevalier commented Apr 14, 2016

Anticipated

@lovemo
Copy link

lovemo commented Apr 14, 2016

great

@kiban18
Copy link

kiban18 commented Apr 14, 2016

Amazing!!

@vapor99
Copy link

vapor99 commented Apr 14, 2016

Whoah! Very nice!

@Ir1d
Copy link

Ir1d commented Apr 14, 2016

Congrats!

@wangxuguo
Copy link

wangxuguo commented Apr 14, 2016

I'm out?

@kewang
Copy link

kewang commented Apr 14, 2016

Today's Big Thing !!!

  1. Kobe last game
  2. Warriors 73 wins
  3. Swift accepted "Port to Android" PR

@cHaLkdusT
Copy link

cHaLkdusT commented Apr 14, 2016

This is exciting!

@meeDamian
Copy link

meeDamian commented Apr 14, 2016

Unsubscribbling, because spam. Can someone close, to pipe comments into, comfortably silent, reaction emojis? Also, fantastic work!

@JingweiWang
Copy link

JingweiWang commented Apr 14, 2016

OMG, I think I must to learn Swift.

@yichengchen
Copy link

yichengchen commented Apr 14, 2016

Exciting锛

@nolim1t
Copy link

nolim1t commented Apr 14, 2016

Good work @modocache

@consbulaquena
Copy link

consbulaquena commented Apr 14, 2016

Congratulations!

@nishantpractoios
Copy link

nishantpractoios commented Apr 14, 2016

Exciting !

@chenym-dev
Copy link

chenym-dev commented Apr 14, 2016

66666666666

@rafaelwkerr
Copy link

rafaelwkerr commented Apr 14, 2016

Awesome

@conqueror
Copy link

conqueror commented Apr 14, 2016

Great news 馃憤

@shige0501
Copy link

shige0501 commented Apr 15, 2016

Good job!

@swiftc-org
Copy link

swiftc-org commented Apr 15, 2016

Nice work!

@Geno1024
Copy link

Geno1024 commented Apr 15, 2016

Excellent!

@dodola
Copy link

dodola commented Apr 15, 2016

馃憤 Excellent

@AniOSDeveloper
Copy link

AniOSDeveloper commented Apr 16, 2016

Good job!

@larryxiao625
Copy link

larryxiao625 commented Apr 16, 2016

6666

@andrekandore
Copy link

andrekandore commented Apr 16, 2016

馃槑 Nice

@justinoboyle
Copy link

justinoboyle commented Apr 17, 2016

Great work.

@otymartin
Copy link

otymartin commented Apr 17, 2016

I just want to put my mark on this馃槑

@noisypigeon
Copy link

noisypigeon commented Apr 18, 2016

Wow! Fantastic news. I'm excited to play around with this. Congrats to everyone involved. Your work is appreciated. 馃憦馃徏馃憦馃徏

@chenp-fjnu
Copy link

chenp-fjnu commented Apr 19, 2016

It's one very good new for developers, for many companies, they have IOS and Android version for every application, it will reduce the effort. Xamarin is another option, but Linux based system should support swift well. I love Swift. Wish it will become usable for real case soon.

@refinedking
Copy link

refinedking commented Apr 19, 2016

Good Job !!!

@apple apple locked and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 19, 2016
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet