http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1119186 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1119186#c1 Wolfgang Bauer <wbauer@tmo.at> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |krzysio.kurek@wp.pl, | |wbauer@tmo.at Assignee|kde-maintainers@suse.de |opensuse-kde-bugs@opensuse. | |org Flags| |needinfo?(krzysio.kurek@wp. | |pl) --- Comment #1 from Wolfgang Bauer <wbauer@tmo.at> --- Works fine here. What openSUSE version are you using? What kdevelop related packages do you have installed exactly? zypper se -si kdev Also, you didn't provide much (or any) information about the actual problem. Which kind of files/programming language is/are affected? I assume C++, is that right? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1119186 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1119186#c3 Wolfgang Bauer <wbauer@tmo.at> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Component|3rd party software |KDE Applications Version|unspecified |Current Product|openSUSE.org |openSUSE Tumbleweed QA Contact|bnc-team-screening@forge.pr |qa-bugs@suse.de |ovo.novell.com | --- Comment #3 from Wolfgang Bauer <wbauer@tmo.at> --- (In reply to Krzysztof Kurek from comment #2)

S | Name | Type | Version | Arch | Repository ---+-------------------+---------+----------------------------+--------+----- ------------------- i+ | kdevelop5 | package | 5.3.0-2.1 | x86_64 | openSUSE-Tumbleweed-Oss i | kdevelop5-lang | package | 5.3.0-2.1 | noarch | openSUSE-Tumbleweed-Oss i | kdevplatform | package | 5.3.0-2.1 | x86_64 | openSUSE-Tumbleweed-Oss i | kdevplatform-lang | package | 5.3.0-2.1 | noarch | openSUSE-Tumbleweed-Oss i+ | libblockdev | package | 2.18-1.1 | x86_64 | openSUSE-Tumbleweed-Oss i+ | libblockdev2 | package | 2.18-1.1 | x86_64 | openSUSE-Tumbleweed-Oss i | libkdevplatform53 | package | 5.3.0-2.1 | x86_64 | openSUSE-Tumbleweed-Oss i+ | liblockdev1 | package | 1.0.3_git201003141408-31.1 | x86_64 | openSUSE-Tumbleweed-Oss i+ | lockdev | package | 1.0.3_git201003141408-31.1 | x86_64 | openSUSE-Tumbleweed-Oss

Looks fine. I suspected some version inconsistency from different repos. I'm wondering why you reported this against KDE:Extra then, but well... ;-) Hm, not sure at the moment why it's not working for you. I'm using Leap 15.0 here with the latest version from KDE:Extra (devel project for Tumbleweed, so should be the same), and the things you describe do work fine here. Too late now for more though, I'll look at it again tomorrow. Just one thing: you don't have the c++ parser disabled by chance? Maybe you could try on a fresh user account to rule out a problem with the settings. (I think the Appimage wouldn't use the config files in the user's home) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1119186 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1119186#c4 Luca Beltrame <lbeltrame@kde.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lbeltrame@kde.org Flags| |needinfo?(krzysio.kurek@wp. | |pl) --- Comment #4 from Luca Beltrame <lbeltrame@kde.org> --- Do you have the clang headers installed? (clang-devel) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1119186 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1119186#c6 --- Comment #6 from Wolfgang Bauer <wbauer@tmo.at> --- (In reply to Luca Beltrame from comment #4)

Do you have the clang headers installed? (clang-devel)

Well, I don't have them installed here. But they may be required in Tumbleweed now, I suppose? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1119186 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1119186#c8 --- Comment #8 from Krzysztof Kurek <krzysio.kurek@wp.pl> --- (In reply to Wolfgang Bauer from comment #3)

I'm wondering why you reported this against KDE:Extra then, but well... ;-) I'm sorry but I'm completely new to OpenSUSE and I was told to report this as a bug, so I pressed the Report Bug link on the OBS Project's page and came here.

But they may be required in Tumbleweed now, I suppose? Oh yeah I've noticed that with the clang-devel package uninstalled kdevelop prints this to the console: kdevplatform.shell: Could not load plugin "kdevclangsupport" , it reported the error: "The clang builtin include path \"/usr/lib64/clang/6.0.1/include\" is invalid (missing cpuid.h header).\nTry setting the KDEV_CLANG_BUILTIN_DIR environment variable manually to fix this.\nSee also: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=393779"

-- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1119186 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1119186#c10 --- Comment #10 from Wolfgang Bauer <wbauer@tmo.at> --- (In reply to Wolfgang Bauer from comment #9)

PS: the include files are part of the clang package itself in Leap 15.0: $ rpm -qf /usr/lib64/clang/5.0.1/include/ clang5-5.0.1-lp150.7.3.1.x86_64

And uninstalling clang5 reproduces the problem for me, i.e. breaks the C(++) support. I just had a look at the Tumbleweed packages, and the cpuid.h header (mentioned in the error message) is in clang(6) there as well, so that's what's actually required. (clang-devel will of course pull this in too) The question now is: do we really need to require clang-devel, or is clang sufficient? As mentioned, I didn't notice any problems without the latter here, but I might have missed something of course. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1119186 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1119186#c12 --- Comment #12 from Wolfgang Bauer <wbauer@tmo.at> --- (In reply to Krzysztof Kurek from comment #11)

I've had clang installed and it didn't suffice. Are you sure you really had clang installed and not just libclang6? (the latter is being pulled in by kdevelop5 already)

I just tried on a current Tumbleweed KDE LiveCD, and installing clang (and not clang-devel) definitely did make the C(++) parser and code completion work, and the error message disappear. I'd somehow prefer to just require clang, because clang-devel does have quite some more dependencies... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1119186 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1119186#c14 --- Comment #14 from Wolfgang Bauer <wbauer@tmo.at> --- (In reply to Krzysztof Kurek from comment #13)

Ah, I've made an oversight. I had clang7 installed, not clang. Indeed it works with just clang, and doesn't require clang-devel.

Yes, as the version is part of the include path, you need the same version installed that it is built against. (i.e. clang7-devel wouldn't have helped either) Unless you explicitly set $KDEV_CLANG_BUILTIN_DIR yourself... (there is some autodetection on runtime, but only on Windows so far: https://cgit.kde.org/kdevelop.git/commit/?h=5.3&id=ec5477f351b6c4b25b7f6533314628ebdd7c2945 ) That also means that we should probably better use "%requires_eq clang" to force the "correct" version. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1119186 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1119186#c16 Wolfgang Bauer <wbauer@tmo.at> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #16 from Wolfgang Bauer <wbauer@tmo.at> --- The mentioned change is on the way to Factory/Tumbleweed: https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/659267 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1119186 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1119186#c18 --- Comment #18 from Wolfgang Bauer <wbauer@tmo.at> --- (In reply to Aaron Puchert from comment #17)

(In reply to Luca Beltrame from comment #15)

...

(In reply to Wolfgang Bauer from comment #14)

...

That also means that we should probably better use "%requires_eq clang" to force the "correct" version.

Agreed. This is probably the best way to go.

I think with https://phabricator.kde.org/D12331 and https://phabricator.kde.org/D17858 in upstream this should no longer be necessary. The last change will be contained in the next 5.3 update or 5.4.

Yes, I'm aware of that and will keep it in mind for the next update. But to clarify: The first one is already in 5.3.0 and obviously doesn't help here. The second one should indeed make it unnecessary to require the exact same version as it was built against, but as I see it you still need the exact same versions of clang and libclang installed. In practice, removing the %requires_eq again won't gain much for the user though (it just will avoid package rebuilds when there are minor clang updates), so we probably still should keep it to be on the safe side. Actually I can imagine a situation where it probably won't help: Consider clang/llvm is upgraded to 8.x. The clang and clang-devel packages will point to 8.x eventually, but as 7.x is still in the repos, kdevelop5 won't get rebuilt and continues to use 7.x. There is no dependency on clang7 though, only clang (which pulls in clang8 then), so the appropriate headers will be missing (if you install it fresh at least, when updating the installed clang7 should not get removed I hope)... Probably an edge case though. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1119186 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1119186#c20 --- Comment #20 from Wolfgang Bauer <wbauer@tmo.at> --- (In reply to Aaron Puchert from comment #19)

...

In practice, removing the %requires_eq again won't gain much for the user though (it just will avoid package rebuilds when there are minor clang updates), so we probably still should keep it to be on the safe side. Not with vanilla Tumbleweed, but I find myself occasionally using updates from devel:tools:compiler that haven't landed in Factory yet

Ok, I suppose that it is indeed a problem in that case (unless kdevelop5 would be built against that repo). Unfortunately, I don't see how we can really cover all cases inside the kdevelop5 package (with the way clang is packaged currently)... If we make your case work, it can break for others.

Not with vanilla Tumbleweed, but I find myself occasionally using updates from > devel:tools:compiler that haven't landed in Factory yet — then I have to tell > zypper to "break" KDevelop. It does actually break, but I can fix that by setting KDEV_CLANG_BUILTIN_DIR.

I suppose the latter should actually be "fixed" by https://phabricator.kde.org/D17858.

...

Actually I can imagine a situation where it probably won't help: Consider clang/llvm is upgraded to 8.x. The clang and clang-devel packages will point to 8.x eventually, but as 7.x is still in the repos, kdevelop5 won't get rebuilt and continues to use 7.x. Something similar actually happened with the update to LLVM 7.0.0 — KDevelop didn't properly work for about a week or two because it linked with libLLVM.so.6 and libLLVM.so.7 at the same time. I had opened bug 1120416 for that, which is now resolved, but it will likely appear again.

Well, that could just as well happen without the %requires_eq, because there is no guarantee that Mesa and kdevelop5 would be rebuilt at the same time (e.g. kdevelop5 could get an update and being rebuilt against the newer version, but Mesa not). Using %requires_eq in both (or actually *all* packages that use clang/libclang) should avoid that though I suppose... ;-)

...

There is no dependency on clang7 though, only clang (which pulls in clang8 then), so the appropriate headers will be missing (if you install it fresh at least, when updating the installed clang7 should not get removed I hope)... Probably an edge case though. Would that be solved if we package the headers with libclang or in a package required by libclang?

Sure, if libclang(X) contains the headers itself, it's basically "guaranteed" that they are available and in the right place. That's probably indeed the best way to ensure this. No idea if that is a feasible/desirable thing to do (from the clang packaging side) though. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1119186 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1119186#c23 --- Comment #23 from Aaron Puchert <aaronpuchert@alice-dsl.net> --- (In reply to Wolfgang Bauer from comment #22)

FYI: kdevelop 5.3.2 has been released today. I removed the %requires_eq, and added a Requires: clangX (corresponding to the libclangX-devel that's used for building) now: Requires: clang%(rpm -q --qf '%''{version}' clang-devel | cut -d. -f1) (inspired by what we have in the libqt5-creator package...)

That should be safe enough I hope, and should also allow you to install a newer clang from 3rd party repos.

https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/682480 Cool, thanks.

Please have a look at https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/685028. It moves the Clang builtin headers from the clang7 package to libclang7. When it lands in Factory, you should be able to remove the runtime dependency to clangX completely. Does (the current version of) KDevelop need to build for older versions of LLVM as well? In that case I'd need to port that change back to llvm{4-6}. Otherwise I'd just leave them as they are. My understanding is that Leap has a fixed older version of KDevelop, so fixing this issue in llvm7 should be enough. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1119186 Aaron Puchert <aaronpuchert@alice-dsl.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |http://bugzilla.opensuse.or | |g/show_bug.cgi?id=1198525 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.