Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2019 11:49:31 -0700 From: Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> To: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: head -r352274 buildkernel targetting armv7 failure: am335x/am335x_dmtpps.c:304:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'spinlock_enter' is invalid in C99 [-Werror,-Wimplicit-function-declaration] Message-ID: <2F803AD5-900F-44F3-99E9-89082D604CA8@yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <e675e9577469510f1c3145e1910b34745a9475fd.camel@freebsd.org> References: <0E884723-2826-4EDF-A16F-841E01E9D4EC@yahoo.com> <e675e9577469510f1c3145e1910b34745a9475fd.camel@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2019-Sep-14, at 11:21, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Sat, 2019-09-14 at 11:05 -0700, Mark Millard via freebsd-arm wrote: >> After updating my amd64 context to head -r352274, >> attempting an amd64->armv7 cross buildworld buildkernel >> ended up failing with: >> >> >> --- am335x_dmtpps.o --- >> /usr/src/sys/arm/ti/am335x/am335x_dmtpps.c:304:3: error: implicit >> declaration of function 'spinlock_enter' is invalid in C99 [-Werror,- >> Wimplicit-function-declaration] >> mtx_lock_spin(&sc->pps_mtx); >> ^ >> (...shortened...) >> . . . >> >> (spinlock_enter was not the only example.) >> >> > > My bad, I forgot to include <lock.h> when I switched the code to > spinlocks. Should be fixed by r352333. Thanks. It is interesting that: https://ci.freebsd.org/job/FreeBSD-head-armv7-build/6042/ shows a successful build of -r352274 (the last before -r352275 broke both arm and aarch64). Prior builds also were successful. I'm manually applied your update to -r352274 and am rebuilding from scratch. === Mark Millard marklmi at yahoo.com ( dsl-only.net went away in early 2018-Mar)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2F803AD5-900F-44F3-99E9-89082D604CA8>