[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171026153952.Horde.6wZOeM9rRKqNnKW12qDYCL_@webmail.your-server.de>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 15:39:52 +0200
From: altr@...2.de
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Linux x86_64
Zitat von Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>:
> In addition to my previous response:
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 01:19:17PM +0200, altr@...2.de wrote:
>> /nfs__share/ae/cc/189/JohnTheRipper/src>CFLAGS="$CFLAGS $cflags
>> -I$asx_prefix/include" LDFLAGS="$LDFLAGS $ldflags -L$asx_prefix/lib"
>> OPENSSL_LIBS="$asx_pref
>> ix/lib/libssl.a $asx_prefix/lib/libcrypto.a"
>> OPENSSL_CFLAGS="-I$asx_prefix/include -L$asx_prefix/lib" ./configure
>> --prefix="$asx_prefix"
>> checking build system type... x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
>> checking host system type... x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
>
> So this looks like a custom or at least unusual Linux distro (or at
> least build of gcc), and you use custom build options.
The flags are for openssl only. It is openssl-1.0.2k in this case.
>> configure: Testing build host's native CPU features
>> checking for Hyperthreading... yes
>> checking for MMX... yes
>> checking for SSE2... yes
>> checking for SSSE3... no
>
> It is rather unusual to have a CPU supporting SSE2 yet not SSSE3 these
> days. I'd guess this non-detection of SSSE3 is a side-effect of the
> overridden CFLAGS, but I can't reproduce it. So are you actually on a
> currently rare early x86-64 CPU from prior to 2006 or so? What is it?
The OS is CentOS 4.1, the CPU has the ability, but the kernel is
unable to do ssse3:
model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-4620 v2 @ 2.60GHz
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge
mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht syscall nx lm
pni cx16 ts
>> configure: WARNING: No recognized optimization option present in CFLAGS
>
> So you'd have a highly unoptimal build, even if the build worked,
> because of you having overridden the CFLAGS.
I like to append the options, how do I achieve this?
> None of this is directly related to the build failure, but it indicates
> that your build is highly unusual in general.
The machines are rather old to ensure compatiblity for newer machines.
So upgrading is not an option.
> As to the build failure, what's your version of "make" - e.g., what does
> "make -v" say?
GNU Make 3.80
Best Regards,
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
