nixpkgs/doc/cross-compilation.xml

<chapter xmlns="http://docbook.org/ns/docbook"
         xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"
         xml:id="chap-cross">
 <title>Cross-compilation</title>
 <section xml:id="sec-cross-intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>

  <para>
   "Cross-compilation" means compiling a program on one machine for another type
   of machine. For example, a typical use of cross-compilation is to compile
   programs for embedded devices. These devices often don't have the computing
   power and memory to compile their own programs. One might think that
   cross-compilation is a fairly niche concern. However, there are significant
   advantages to rigorously distinguishing between build-time and run-time
   environments! This applies even when one is developing and deploying on the
   same machine. Nixpkgs is increasingly adopting the opinion that packages
   should be written with cross-compilation in mind, and nixpkgs should evaluate
   in a similar way (by minimizing cross-compilation-specific special cases)
   whether or not one is cross-compiling.
  </para>

  <para>
   This chapter will be organized in three parts. First, it will describe the
   basics of how to package software in a way that supports cross-compilation.
   Second, it will describe how to use Nixpkgs when cross-compiling. Third, it
   will describe the internal infrastructure supporting cross-compilation.
  </para>
 </section>
<!--============================================================-->
 <section xml:id="sec-cross-packaging">
  <title>Packaging in a cross-friendly manner</title>

  <section xml:id="sec-cross-platform-parameters">
   <title>Platform parameters</title>

   <para>
     Nixpkgs follows the <link
     xlink:href="https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Configure-Terms.html">conventions
     of GNU autoconf</link>. We distinguish between 3 types of platforms when
     building a derivation: <wordasword>build</wordasword>,
     <wordasword>host</wordasword>, and <wordasword>target</wordasword>. In
     summary, <wordasword>build</wordasword> is the platform on which a package
     is being built, <wordasword>host</wordasword> is the platform on which it
     will run. The third attribute, <wordasword>target</wordasword>, is relevant
     only for certain specific compilers and build tools.
   </para>

   <para>
    In Nixpkgs, these three platforms are defined as attribute sets under the
    names <literal>buildPlatform</literal>, <literal>hostPlatform</literal>,
    and <literal>targetPlatform</literal>. They are always defined as
    attributes in the standard environment. That means one can access them
    like:
<programlisting>{ stdenv, fooDep, barDep, .. }: ...stdenv.buildPlatform...</programlisting>
    .
   </para>

   <variablelist>
    <varlistentry>
     <term>
      <varname>buildPlatform</varname>
     </term>
     <listitem>
      <para>
       The "build platform" is the platform on which a package is built. Once
       someone has a built package, or pre-built binary package, the build
       platform should not matter and can be ignored.
      </para>
     </listitem>
    </varlistentry>
    <varlistentry>
     <term>
      <varname>hostPlatform</varname>
     </term>
     <listitem>
      <para>
       The "host platform" is the platform on which a package will be run. This
       is the simplest platform to understand, but also the one with the worst
       name.
      </para>
     </listitem>
    </varlistentry>
    <varlistentry>
     <term>
      <varname>targetPlatform</varname>
     </term>
     <listitem>
      <para>
       The "target platform" attribute is, unlike the other two attributes, not
       actually fundamental to the process of building software. Instead, it is
       only relevant for compatibility with building certain specific compilers
       and build tools. It can be safely ignored for all other packages.
      </para>
      <para>
       The build process of certain compilers is written in such a way that the
       compiler resulting from a single build can itself only produce binaries
       for a single platform. The task of specifying this single "target
       platform" is thus pushed to build time of the compiler. The root cause of
       this is that the compiler (which will be run on the host) and the standard
       library/runtime (which will be run on the target) are built by a single
       build process.
      </para>
      <para>
       There is no fundamental need to think about a single target ahead of
       time like this. If the tool supports modular or pluggable backends, both
       the need to specify the target at build time and the constraint of
       having only a single target disappear. An example of such a tool is
       LLVM.
      </para>
      <para>
       Although the existence of a "target platfom" is arguably a historical
       mistake, it is a common one: examples of tools that suffer from it are
       GCC, Binutils, GHC and Autoconf. Nixpkgs tries to avoid sharing in the
       mistake where possible. Still, because the concept of a target platform
       is so ingrained, it is best to support it as is.
      </para>
     </listitem>
    </varlistentry>
   </variablelist>

   <para>
    The exact schema these fields follow is a bit ill-defined due to a long and
    convoluted evolution, but this is slowly being cleaned up. You can see
    examples of ones used in practice in
    <literal>lib.systems.examples</literal>; note how they are not all very
    consistent. For now, here are few fields can count on them containing:
   </para>

   <variablelist>
    <varlistentry>
     <term>
      <varname>system</varname>
     </term>
     <listitem>
      <para>
       This is a two-component shorthand for the platform. Examples of this
       would be "x86_64-darwin" and "i686-linux"; see
       <literal>lib.systems.doubles</literal> for more. The first component
       corresponds to the CPU architecture of the platform and the second to the
       operating system of the platform (<literal>[cpu]-[os]</literal>). This
       format has built-in support in Nix, such as the
       <varname>builtins.currentSystem</varname> impure string.
      </para>
     </listitem>
    </varlistentry>
    <varlistentry>
     <term>
      <varname>config</varname>
     </term>
     <listitem>
      <para>
       This is a 3- or 4- component shorthand for the platform. Examples of this
       would be <literal>x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu</literal> and
       <literal>aarch64-apple-darwin14</literal>. This is a standard format
       called the "LLVM target triple", as they are pioneered by LLVM. In the
       4-part form, this corresponds to
       <literal>[cpu]-[vendor]-[os]-[abi]</literal>. This format is strictly
       more informative than the "Nix host double", as the previous format could
       analogously be termed. This needs a better name than
       <varname>config</varname>!
      </para>
     </listitem>
    </varlistentry>
    <varlistentry>
     <term>
      <varname>parsed</varname>
     </term>
     <listitem>
      <para>
       This is a Nix representation of a parsed LLVM target triple
       with white-listed components. This can be specified directly,
       or actually parsed from the <varname>config</varname>. See
       <literal>lib.systems.parse</literal> for the exact
       representation.
      </para>
     </listitem>
    </varlistentry>
    <varlistentry>
     <term>
      <varname>libc</varname>
     </term>
     <listitem>
      <para>
       This is a string identifying the standard C library used. Valid
       identifiers include "glibc" for GNU libc, "libSystem" for Darwin's
       Libsystem, and "uclibc" for µClibc. It should probably be refactored to
       use the module system, like <varname>parse</varname>.
      </para>
     </listitem>
    </varlistentry>
    <varlistentry>
     <term>
      <varname>is*</varname>
     </term>
     <listitem>
      <para>
       These predicates are defined in <literal>lib.systems.inspect</literal>,
       and slapped onto every platform. They are superior to the ones in
       <varname>stdenv</varname> as they force the user to be explicit about
       which platform they are inspecting. Please use these instead of those.
      </para>
     </listitem>
    </varlistentry>
    <varlistentry>
     <term>
      <varname>platform</varname>
     </term>
     <listitem>
      <para>
       This is, quite frankly, a dumping ground of ad-hoc settings (it's an
       attribute set). See <literal>lib.systems.platforms</literal> for
       examples—there's hopefully one in there that will work verbatim for
       each platform that is working. Please help us triage these flags and
       give them better homes!
      </para>
     </listitem>
    </varlistentry>
   </variablelist>
  </section>

  <section xml:id="sec-cross-specifying-dependencies">
   <title>Specifying Dependencies</title>

   <para>
    In this section we explore the relationship between both runtime and
    build-time dependencies and the 3 Autoconf platforms.
   </para>

   <para>
    A runtime dependency between 2 packages implies that between them both the
    host and target platforms match. This is directly implied by the meaning of
    "host platform" and "runtime dependency": The package dependency exists
    while both packages are running on a single host platform.
   </para>

   <para>
    A build time dependency, however, implies a shift in platforms between the
    depending package and the depended-on package. The meaning of a build time
    dependency is that to build the depending package we need to be able to run
    the depended-on's package. The depending package's build platform is
    therefore equal to the depended-on package's host platform. Analogously,
    the depending package's host platform is equal to the depended-on package's
    target platform.
   </para>

   <para>
    In this manner, given the 3 platforms for one package, we can determine the
    three platforms for all its transitive dependencies. This is the most
    important guiding principle behind cross-compilation with Nixpkgs, and will
    be called the <wordasword>sliding window principle</wordasword>.
   </para>

   <para>
    Some examples will make this clearer. If a package is being built with a
    <literal>(build, host, target)</literal> platform triple of <literal>(foo,
    bar, bar)</literal>, then its build-time dependencies would have a triple of
    <literal>(foo, foo, bar)</literal>, and <emphasis>those packages'</emphasis>
    build-time dependencies would have a triple of <literal>(foo, foo,
    foo)</literal>. In other words, it should take two "rounds" of following
    build-time dependency edges before one reaches a fixed point where, by the
    sliding window principle, the platform triple no longer changes. Indeed,
    this happens with cross-compilation, where only rounds of native
    dependencies starting with the second necessarily coincide with native
    packages.
   </para>

   <note>
    <para>
     The depending package's target platform is unconstrained by the sliding
     window principle, which makes sense in that one can in principle build
     cross compilers targeting arbitrary platforms.
    </para>
   </note>

   <para>
    How does this work in practice? Nixpkgs is now structured so that build-time
    dependencies are taken from <varname>buildPackages</varname>, whereas
    run-time dependencies are taken from the top level attribute set. For
    example, <varname>buildPackages.gcc</varname> should be used at build-time,
    while <varname>gcc</varname> should be used at run-time. Now, for most of
    Nixpkgs's history, there was no <varname>buildPackages</varname>, and most
    packages have not been refactored to use it explicitly. Instead, one can use
    the six (<emphasis>gasp</emphasis>) attributes used for specifying
    dependencies as documented in <xref linkend="ssec-stdenv-dependencies"/>. We
    "splice" together the run-time and build-time package sets with
    <varname>callPackage</varname>, and then <varname>mkDerivation</varname> for
    each of four attributes pulls the right derivation out. This splicing can be
    skipped when not cross-compiling as the package sets are the same, but is a
    bit slow for cross-compiling. Because of this, a best-of-both-worlds
    solution is in the works with no splicing or explicit access of
    <varname>buildPackages</varname> needed. For now, feel free to use either
    method.
   </para>

   <note>
    <para>
     There is also a "backlink" <varname>targetPackages</varname>, yielding a
     package set whose <varname>buildPackages</varname> is the current package
     set. This is a hack, though, to accommodate compilers with lousy build
     systems. Please do not use this unless you are absolutely sure you are
     packaging such a compiler and there is no other way.
    </para>
   </note>
  </section>

  <section xml:id="sec-cross-cookbook">
   <title>Cross packaging cookbook</title>

   <para>
    Some frequently encountered problems when packaging for cross-compilation
    should be answered here. Ideally, the information above is exhaustive, so
    this section cannot provide any new information, but it is ludicrous and
    cruel to expect everyone to spend effort working through the interaction of
    many features just to figure out the same answer to the same common problem.
    Feel free to add to this list!
   </para>

   <qandaset>
    <qandaentry xml:id="cross-qa-build-c-program-in-build-environment">
     <question>
      <para>
       What if my package's build system needs to build a C program to be run
       under the build environment?
      </para>
     </question>
     <answer>
      <para>
<programlisting>depsBuildBuild = [ buildPackages.stdenv.cc ];</programlisting>
       Add it to your <function>mkDerivation</function> invocation.
      </para>
     </answer>
    </qandaentry>
    <qandaentry xml:id="cross-qa-fails-to-find-ar">
     <question>
      <para>
       My package fails to find <command>ar</command>.
      </para>
     </question>
     <answer>
      <para>
       Many packages assume that an unprefixed <command>ar</command> is
       available, but Nix doesn't provide one. It only provides a prefixed one,
       just as it only does for all the other binutils programs. It may be
       necessary to patch the package to fix the build system to use a prefixed
       `ar`.
      </para>
     </answer>
    </qandaentry>
    <qandaentry xml:id="cross-testsuite-runs-host-code">
     <question>
      <para>
       My package's testsuite needs to run host platform code.
      </para>
     </question>
     <answer>
      <para>
<programlisting>doCheck = stdenv.hostPlatform != stdenv.buildPlatfrom;</programlisting>
       Add it to your <function>mkDerivation</function> invocation.
      </para>
     </answer>
    </qandaentry>
   </qandaset>
  </section>
 </section>
<!--============================================================-->
 <section xml:id="sec-cross-usage">
  <title>Cross-building packages</title>

  <para>
   Nixpkgs can be instantiated with <varname>localSystem</varname> alone, in
   which case there is no cross-compiling and everything is built by and for
   that system, or also with <varname>crossSystem</varname>, in which case
   packages run on the latter, but all building happens on the former. Both
   parameters take the same schema as the 3 (build, host, and target) platforms
   defined in the previous section. As mentioned above,
   <literal>lib.systems.examples</literal> has some platforms which are used as
   arguments for these parameters in practice. You can use them
   programmatically, or on the command line:
<programlisting>
nix-build &lt;nixpkgs&gt; --arg crossSystem '(import &lt;nixpkgs/lib&gt;).systems.examples.fooBarBaz' -A whatever</programlisting>
  </para>

  <note>
   <para>
    Eventually we would like to make these platform examples an unnecessary
    convenience so that
<programlisting>
nix-build &lt;nixpkgs&gt; --arg crossSystem '{ config = "&lt;arch&gt;-&lt;os&gt;-&lt;vendor&gt;-&lt;abi&gt;"; }' -A whatever</programlisting>
    works in the vast majority of cases. The problem today is dependencies on
    other sorts of configuration which aren't given proper defaults. We rely on
    the examples to crudely to set those configuration parameters in some
    vaguely sane manner on the users behalf. Issue
    <link xlink:href="https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/34274">#34274</link>
    tracks this inconvenience along with its root cause in crufty configuration
    options.
   </para>
  </note>

  <para>
   While one is free to pass both parameters in full, there's a lot of logic to
   fill in missing fields. As discussed in the previous section, only one of
   <varname>system</varname>, <varname>config</varname>, and
   <varname>parsed</varname> is needed to infer the other two. Additionally,
   <varname>libc</varname> will be inferred from <varname>parse</varname>.
   Finally, <literal>localSystem.system</literal> is also
   <emphasis>impurely</emphasis> inferred based on the platform evaluation
   occurs. This means it is often not necessary to pass
   <varname>localSystem</varname> at all, as in the command-line example in the
   previous paragraph.
  </para>

  <note>
   <para>
    Many sources (manual, wiki, etc) probably mention passing
    <varname>system</varname>, <varname>platform</varname>, along with the
    optional <varname>crossSystem</varname> to nixpkgs: <literal>import
    &lt;nixpkgs&gt; { system = ..; platform = ..; crossSystem = ..;
    }</literal>. Passing those two instead of <varname>localSystem</varname> is
    still supported for compatibility, but is discouraged. Indeed, much of the
    inference we do for these parameters is motivated by compatibility as much
    as convenience.
   </para>
  </note>

  <para>
   One would think that <varname>localSystem</varname> and
   <varname>crossSystem</varname> overlap horribly with the three
   <varname>*Platforms</varname> (<varname>buildPlatform</varname>,
   <varname>hostPlatform,</varname> and <varname>targetPlatform</varname>; see
   <varname>stage.nix</varname> or the manual). Actually, those identifiers are
   purposefully not used here to draw a subtle but important distinction: While
   the granularity of having 3 platforms is necessary to properly *build*
   packages, it is overkill for specifying the user's *intent* when making a
   build plan or package set. A simple "build vs deploy" dichotomy is adequate:
   the sliding window principle described in the previous section shows how to
   interpolate between the these two "end points" to get the 3 platform triple
   for each bootstrapping stage. That means for any package a given package set,
   even those not bound on the top level but only reachable via dependencies or
   <varname>buildPackages</varname>, the three platforms will be defined as one
   of <varname>localSystem</varname> or <varname>crossSystem</varname>, with the
   former replacing the latter as one traverses build-time dependencies. A last
   simple difference is that <varname>crossSystem</varname> should be null when
   one doesn't want to cross-compile, while the <varname>*Platform</varname>s
   are always non-null. <varname>localSystem</varname> is always non-null.
  </para>
 </section>
<!--============================================================-->
 <section xml:id="sec-cross-infra">
  <title>Cross-compilation infrastructure</title>

  <para>
   To be written.
  </para>

  <note>
   <para>
    If one explores Nixpkgs, they will see derivations with names like
    <literal>gccCross</literal>. Such <literal>*Cross</literal> derivations is a
    holdover from before we properly distinguished between the host and target
    platforms—the derivation with "Cross" in the name covered the <literal>build
    = host != target</literal> case, while the other covered the <literal>host =
    target</literal>, with build platform the same or not based on whether one
    was using its <literal>.nativeDrv</literal> or <literal>.crossDrv</literal>.
    This ugliness will disappear soon.
   </para>
  </note>
 </section>
</chapter>