Horton

Thread

Commits

  1. Fix LLVM related headers to compile standalone (to fix cpluspluscheck).

  1. Header checking failures on LLVM-less machines

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2019-01-28T16:19:21Z

    Since the LLVM stuff went in, src/tools/pginclude/cpluspluscheck
fails on my main devel machine, because

In file included from /tmp/cpluspluscheck.jobsM6/test.cpp:3:
./src/include/jit/llvmjit_emit.h:13:25: error: llvm-c/Core.h: No such file or directory

and then there's a bunch of ensuing spewage due to missing typedefs
etc.  llvmjit.h has the same problem plus this additional pointless
aggravation:

In file included from /tmp/cpluspluscheck.jobsM6/test.cpp:3:
./src/include/jit/llvmjit.h:15:2: error: #error "llvmjit.h should only be included by code dealing with llvm"

I propose that we should fix this by making the whole bodies of those
two headers be #ifdef USE_LLVM.

			regards, tom lane

  2. Re: Header checking failures on LLVM-less machines

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2019-01-29T00:51:22Z

    I wrote:
> Since the LLVM stuff went in, src/tools/pginclude/cpluspluscheck
> fails on my main devel machine, because

Actually, it also fails on another machine that does have LLVM installed:

In file included from /tmp/cpluspluscheck.LqnoZj/test.cpp:3:
./src/include/jit/llvmjit_emit.h: In function 'LLVMOpaqueValue* l_ptr_const(void*, LLVMTypeRef)':
./src/include/jit/llvmjit_emit.h:22:32: error: 'TypeSizeT' was not declared in this scope
  LLVMValueRef c = LLVMConstInt(TypeSizeT, (uintptr_t) ptr, false);
                                ^~~~~~~~~
./src/include/jit/llvmjit_emit.h: In function 'LLVMOpaqueValue* l_sizet_const(size_t)':
./src/include/jit/llvmjit_emit.h:78:22: error: 'TypeSizeT' was not declared in this scope
  return LLVMConstInt(TypeSizeT, i, false);
                      ^~~~~~~~~
./src/include/jit/llvmjit_emit.h: In function 'LLVMOpaqueValue* l_sbool_const(bool)':
./src/include/jit/llvmjit_emit.h:87:22: error: 'TypeStorageBool' was not declared in this scope
  return LLVMConstInt(TypeStorageBool, (int) i, false);
                      ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
./src/include/jit/llvmjit_emit.h: In function 'LLVMOpaqueValue* l_pbool_const(bool)':
./src/include/jit/llvmjit_emit.h:96:22: error: 'TypeParamBool' was not declared in this scope
  return LLVMConstInt(TypeParamBool, (int) i, false);
                      ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
./src/include/jit/llvmjit_emit.h: In function 'LLVMOpaqueValue* l_mcxt_switch(LLVMModuleRef, LLVMBuilderRef, LLVMValueRef)':
./src/include/jit/llvmjit_emit.h:205:34: error: 'StructMemoryContextData' was not declared in this scope
   cur = LLVMAddGlobal(mod, l_ptr(StructMemoryContextData), cmc);
                                  ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
./src/include/jit/llvmjit_emit.h:205:34: note: suggested alternative: 'MemoryContextData'
   cur = LLVMAddGlobal(mod, l_ptr(StructMemoryContextData), cmc);
                                  ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                  MemoryContextData
./src/include/jit/llvmjit_emit.h: In function 'LLVMOpaqueValue* l_funcnullp(LLVMBuilderRef, LLVMValueRef, size_t)':
./src/include/jit/llvmjit_emit.h:223:9: error: 'FIELDNO_FUNCTIONCALLINFODATA_ARGS' was not declared in this scope
         FIELDNO_FUNCTIONCALLINFODATA_ARGS,
         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
./src/include/jit/llvmjit_emit.h: In function 'LLVMOpaqueValue* l_funcvaluep(LLVMBuilderRef, LLVMValueRef, size_t)':
./src/include/jit/llvmjit_emit.h:241:9: error: 'FIELDNO_FUNCTIONCALLINFODATA_ARGS' was not declared in this scope
         FIELDNO_FUNCTIONCALLINFODATA_ARGS,
         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Evidently, llvmjit_emit.h doesn't meet the project standard that says
it should be includable standalone (to ensure that header inclusion
order isn't important in .c files).  It looks like it needs to #include
llvmjit.h and fmgr.h to satisfy these references.  Is there a good
reason why this wasn't done?

			regards, tom lane

  3. Re: Header checking failures on LLVM-less machines

    Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> — 2019-01-29T00:55:53Z

    On 2019-01-28 19:51:22 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> On 2019-01-28 11:19:21 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Since the LLVM stuff went in, src/tools/pginclude/cpluspluscheck
> > fails on my main devel machine, because
> > 
> > In file included from /tmp/cpluspluscheck.jobsM6/test.cpp:3:
> > ./src/include/jit/llvmjit_emit.h:13:25: error: llvm-c/Core.h: No such file or directory
> > 
> > and then there's a bunch of ensuing spewage due to missing typedefs
> > etc.  llvmjit.h has the same problem plus this additional pointless
> > aggravation:
> > 
> > In file included from /tmp/cpluspluscheck.jobsM6/test.cpp:3:
> > ./src/include/jit/llvmjit.h:15:2: error: #error "llvmjit.h should only be included by code dealing with llvm"
> > 
> > I propose that we should fix this by making the whole bodies of those
> > two headers be #ifdef USE_LLVM.

Hm, I think it's sufficient that we error out if llvm was configured,
we've sufficient buildfarm machines running with it enabled.


> Actually, it also fails on another machine that does have LLVM installed:
> 
> In file included from /tmp/cpluspluscheck.LqnoZj/test.cpp:3:
> ./src/include/jit/llvmjit_emit.h: In function 'LLVMOpaqueValue* l_ptr_const(void*, LLVMTypeRef)':
> ./src/include/jit/llvmjit_emit.h:22:32: error: 'TypeSizeT' was not declared in this scope
>   LLVMValueRef c = LLVMConstInt(TypeSizeT, (uintptr_t) ptr, false);
>                                 ^~~~~~~~~
> ./src/include/jit/llvmjit_emit.h: In function 'LLVMOpaqueValue* l_sizet_const(size_t)':
> ./src/include/jit/llvmjit_emit.h:78:22: error: 'TypeSizeT' was not declared in this scope
>   return LLVMConstInt(TypeSizeT, i, false);
>                       ^~~~~~~~~
> ./src/include/jit/llvmjit_emit.h: In function 'LLVMOpaqueValue* l_sbool_const(bool)':
> ./src/include/jit/llvmjit_emit.h:87:22: error: 'TypeStorageBool' was not declared in this scope
>   return LLVMConstInt(TypeStorageBool, (int) i, false);
>                       ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ./src/include/jit/llvmjit_emit.h: In function 'LLVMOpaqueValue* l_pbool_const(bool)':
> ./src/include/jit/llvmjit_emit.h:96:22: error: 'TypeParamBool' was not declared in this scope
>   return LLVMConstInt(TypeParamBool, (int) i, false);
>                       ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ./src/include/jit/llvmjit_emit.h: In function 'LLVMOpaqueValue* l_mcxt_switch(LLVMModuleRef, LLVMBuilderRef, LLVMValueRef)':
> ./src/include/jit/llvmjit_emit.h:205:34: error: 'StructMemoryContextData' was not declared in this scope
>    cur = LLVMAddGlobal(mod, l_ptr(StructMemoryContextData), cmc);
>                                   ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ./src/include/jit/llvmjit_emit.h:205:34: note: suggested alternative: 'MemoryContextData'
>    cur = LLVMAddGlobal(mod, l_ptr(StructMemoryContextData), cmc);
>                                   ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>                                   MemoryContextData
> ./src/include/jit/llvmjit_emit.h: In function 'LLVMOpaqueValue* l_funcnullp(LLVMBuilderRef, LLVMValueRef, size_t)':
> ./src/include/jit/llvmjit_emit.h:223:9: error: 'FIELDNO_FUNCTIONCALLINFODATA_ARGS' was not declared in this scope
>          FIELDNO_FUNCTIONCALLINFODATA_ARGS,
>          ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ./src/include/jit/llvmjit_emit.h: In function 'LLVMOpaqueValue* l_funcvaluep(LLVMBuilderRef, LLVMValueRef, size_t)':
> ./src/include/jit/llvmjit_emit.h:241:9: error: 'FIELDNO_FUNCTIONCALLINFODATA_ARGS' was not declared in this scope
>          FIELDNO_FUNCTIONCALLINFODATA_ARGS,
>          ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> Evidently, llvmjit_emit.h doesn't meet the project standard that says
> it should be includable standalone (to ensure that header inclusion
> order isn't important in .c files).  It looks like it needs to #include
> llvmjit.h and fmgr.h to satisfy these references.  Is there a good
> reason why this wasn't done?

Not really a good one - it's not really meant as an API just a
collection of mini helpers for codegen, but there's no reason not to
make it self sufficient.

Will make them so.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

  4. Re: Header checking failures on LLVM-less machines

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2019-01-29T01:21:49Z

    Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2019-01-28 19:51:22 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I propose that we should fix this by making the whole bodies of those
>> two headers be #ifdef USE_LLVM.

> Hm, I think it's sufficient that we error out if llvm was configured,
> we've sufficient buildfarm machines running with it enabled.

That is not the point.  The point is that you've broken a developer
tool.  I don't really care whether cpluspluscheck would work on
some subset of buildfarm machines --- what I need is for it to work
on *my* machine.  It is not any more okay for the llvm headers to fail
like this than it would be for libxml- or openssl- or Windows-dependent
headers to fail on machines lacking respective infrastructure.

(And yes, I realize that that means that cpluspluscheck can only
check a subset of the header declarations on any particular machine.
But there's no way around that.)

			regards, tom lane

  5. Re: Header checking failures on LLVM-less machines

    Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> — 2019-01-29T01:37:53Z

    Hi,

On 2019-01-28 20:21:49 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 2019-01-28 19:51:22 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I propose that we should fix this by making the whole bodies of those
> >> two headers be #ifdef USE_LLVM.
> 
> > Hm, I think it's sufficient that we error out if llvm was configured,
> > we've sufficient buildfarm machines running with it enabled.
> 
> That is not the point.  The point is that you've broken a developer
> tool.  I don't really care whether cpluspluscheck would work on
> some subset of buildfarm machines --- what I need is for it to work
> on *my* machine.  It is not any more okay for the llvm headers to fail
> like this than it would be for libxml- or openssl- or Windows-dependent
> headers to fail on machines lacking respective infrastructure.
> 
> (And yes, I realize that that means that cpluspluscheck can only
> check a subset of the header declarations on any particular machine.
> But there's no way around that.)

I don't think we are actually contradicting each other. The aim of that
error was to prevent pieces of code that aren't conditional on
--with-llvm from including llvmjit.h.  I was, for a moment and wrongly,
thinking that we could style the header in a way that'd make it both for
safe for cpluspluscheck and still error in that case, but that was a
brainfart.  But even leaving that brainfart aside, I'm not arguing
against adding those include guards, so ...?

I think the raison d'etre for that error has shrunk considerably anyway
- it was introduced before the LLVM including/linking code was separated
into it's own .so / directory.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

  6. Re: Header checking failures on LLVM-less machines

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2019-01-29T03:19:32Z

    Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> I don't think we are actually contradicting each other. The aim of that
> error was to prevent pieces of code that aren't conditional on
> --with-llvm from including llvmjit.h.  I was, for a moment and wrongly,
> thinking that we could style the header in a way that'd make it both for
> safe for cpluspluscheck and still error in that case, but that was a
> brainfart.  But even leaving that brainfart aside, I'm not arguing
> against adding those include guards, so ...?

Works for me now.  Thanks for fixing.

			regards, tom lane