Revert "Fix build error on riscv64 by linking libatomic" #197
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This reverts commit 10c277c. Whether `-latomic` needs to be linked or not depends on the used toolchain, not the architecture of the platform we build for. In my case I'm building on a riscv64 system using the LLVM toolchain, so there's not even a `-latomic` to link against. But the current logic tries to link `-latomic` anyway, resulting in a build failure. The correct way to detect whether the used toolchain needs to link `-latomic` explicitly in order to use `__atomic_fetch_and_1` seems to be `AC_SEARCH_LIBS`. This was 1.) introduced in e0de0d9 ("link with -latomic if needed") 2.) wrongly removed in commit 10c277c ("Fix build error on riscv64 by linking libatomic"). 3.) reinstantiated in commit 18ec3b9 ("link with -latomic if needed (again ...)") The build log[1] referenced in the PR[2] that introduced the unconditional linking of `-latomic` on riscv64 shows that the build error happened with version 2.0.14, but the commit introducing the usage of `AC_SEARCH_LIBS` was merged after that: $ git --no-pager tag --contains e0de0d9 v2.0.15 v2.0.16 So it looks like e0de0d9 ("link with -latomic if needed") fixed the problem for both scenarios and 10c277c ("Fix build error on riscv64 by linking libatomic") wasn't necessary at all after it. [1] https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=numactl&arch=riscv64&ver=2.0.14-3&stamp=1632275973&raw=0 [2] numactl#131 Signed-off-by: Marvin Schmidt <marv@exherbo.org>
luochenglcs
approved these changes
Oct 23, 2023
|
thanks! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This reverts commit 10c277c.
Whether
-latomicneeds to be linked or not depends on the used toolchain, not the architecture of the platform we build for. In my case I'm building on a riscv64 system using the LLVM toolchain, so there's not even a-latomicto link against. But the current logic tries to link-latomicanyway, resulting in a build failure.The correct way to detect whether the used toolchain needs to link
-latomicexplicitly in order to use__atomic_fetch_and_1seems to beAC_SEARCH_LIBS.This was
1.) introduced in e0de0d9 ("link with -latomic if needed")
2.) wrongly removed in commit 10c277c ("Fix build error on riscv64 by linking libatomic").
3.) reinstantiated in commit 18ec3b9 ("link with -latomic if needed (again ...)")
The build log[1] referenced in the PR[2] that introduced the unconditional linking of
-latomicon riscv64 shows that the build error happened with version 2.0.14, but the commit introducing the usage ofAC_SEARCH_LIBSwas merged after that:$ git --no-pager tag --contains e0de0d9
v2.0.15
v2.0.16
So it looks like e0de0d9 ("link with -latomic if needed") fixed the problem for both scenarios and 10c277c ("Fix build error on riscv64 by linking libatomic") wasn't necessary at all after it.
[1] https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=numactl&arch=riscv64&ver=2.0.14-3&stamp=1632275973&raw=0
[2] #131