[PATCH v2 6/8] arm64: alternatives: have callbacks take a cap

[Ard Biesheuvel]

On Thu, 29 Sept 2022 at 11:54, Jon Hunter <jonathanh at nvidia.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 27/09/2022 10:31, Jon Hunter wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/alternative-macros.h
> >> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/alternative-macros.h
> >> index 7e157ab6cd505..189c31be163ce 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/alternative-macros.h
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/alternative-macros.h
> >> @@ -2,10 +2,16 @@
> >>   #ifndef __ASM_ALTERNATIVE_MACROS_H
> >>   #define __ASM_ALTERNATIVE_MACROS_H
> >> +#include <linux/const.h>
> >> +
> >>   #include <asm/cpucaps.h>
> >>   #include <asm/insn-def.h>
> >> -#define ARM64_CB_PATCH ARM64_NCAPS
> >> +#define ARM64_CB_BIT    (UL(1) << 15)
> >> +
> >> +#if ARM64_NCAPS >= ARM64_CB_BIT
> >> +#error "cpucaps have overflown ARM64_CB_BIT"
> >> +#endif
> >
> >
> > Some of our builders are failing and bisect is pointing to this commit.
> > Looks like they don't like the above and I see the following errors ...
> >
> >    CC      arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/vhe/debug-sr.o
> > /tmp/ccY3kbki.s: Assembler messages:
> > /tmp/ccY3kbki.s:1600: Error: found 'L', expected: ')'
> > /tmp/ccY3kbki.s:1600: Error: found 'L', expected: ')'
> > /tmp/ccY3kbki.s:1600: Error: found 'L', expected: ')'
> > /tmp/ccY3kbki.s:1600: Error: found 'L', expected: ')'
> > /tmp/ccY3kbki.s:1600: Error: junk at end of line, first unrecognized
> > character is `L'
> > /tmp/ccY3kbki.s:1723: Error: found 'L', expected: ')'
> > /tmp/ccY3kbki.s:1723: Error: found 'L', expected: ')'
> > /tmp/ccY3kbki.s:1723: Error: found 'L', expected: ')'
> > /tmp/ccY3kbki.s:1723: Error: found 'L', expected: ')'
> > /tmp/ccY3kbki.s:1723: Error: junk at end of line, first unrecognized
> > character is `L'
> > scripts/Makefile.build:249: recipe for target
> > 'arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/vhe/debug-sr.o' failed
> >
> > Seems that it does not like the 'UL' macro for some reason. Any thoughts?
>
>
> FYI, this issue is seen with GCC6 but GCC7 and beyond appear to work fine.
>

Are you using the same version of binutils with those different
compilers? And which is/are the exact version(s)?