1
0
Fork 1
mirror of https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs.git synced 2024-11-24 14:41:17 +00:00
nixpkgs/doc/cross-compilation.xml
Lorenzo cdf80ff19a
doc/cross-compilation: fix typo
Add missing verb.
2019-02-26 22:56:56 +01:00

469 lines
20 KiB
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>