|
Message-ID: <CAGWvny=1ePv4yGG63i1ezOLhU5Ou7RCq59P6EpvzLNrwWA_q1A@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 21:07:08 -0400 From: David Edelsohn <dje.gcc@...il.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] s390x: Add single instruction math functions Rich, Another option is a test recommended by a colleague #if (__HTM__ || __ARCH__ > z196) __HTM__ is defined in earlier releases of GCC and is enabled in zEC12, so it can be used as a proxy for the architecture in earlier compiler releases. Would that be acceptable? Thanks, David On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 8:49 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 01:12:15PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote: >> How can we move forward with this patch? >> >> I would prefer to avoid the __ARCH__ complexity until there is a clear >> user requirement. >> >> Thanks, David > > Rob Landley informed me that the s390x environment he's building with > mkroot (https://github.com/landley/mkroot) for testing under qemu > system level emulation is running a kernel built for z900. If qemu can > emulate newer machines, this may just be an oversight that can be > changes by reconfiguring, but it does indicate that z900 seems to be > supported by kernel, and that there's at least someone using the > baseline ISA level now. > > For what it's worth I agree that we've spent an inordinate amount of > time on this topic, and I apologize. I just don't want it to turn into > a regression. > > Rich > > >> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 7:44 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote: >> > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 09:28:52AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote: >> >> >> The following IBM table of supported and tested systems >> >> >> >> >> >> https://www-03.ibm.com/systems/z/os/linux/resources/testedplatforms.html >> >> >> >> >> >> shows that RHEL 7 and SLES 12 require at least z196, and Ubuntu 16.04 >> >> >> requires at least zEC12. >> >> >> >> >> >> I can't find any official hardware requirements description for Alpine >> >> >> Linux. I tend to doubt that user would run it on older hardware, >> >> >> especially hardware no longer supported by other, modern Linux >> >> >> distributions. >> >> >> >> >> >> Building musl libc on older hardware is a nice accomplishment, but >> >> >> investing effort and complexity to maintain support probably isn't >> >> >> useful to any musl libc user and probably isn't a productive use of >> >> >> developer resources. >> >> >> >> >> >> I will continue to inquire if there is a simple technique to accomplish this. >> >> >> >> Apparently GCC 7.1 added architecture macros. >> >> >> >> As Tuan referenced, Alpine Linux also requires z196 as the minimum >> >> architecture level. I believe that it would be better for s390-musl >> >> to default to z196 ISA than musl to require GCC 7.1. >> > >> > I agree we shouldn't "require GCC 7.1", but using the macros does not >> > imply such a requirement. For example: >> > >> > #if __ARCH__ >= 10 >> > >> > would only use the asm on z196+ (if I got the number right) with GCC >> > 7.1+ (no asm on older compilers), whereas: >> > >> > #if __ARCH__ >= 10 || !defined(__ARCH__) >> > >> > would use the asm on z196+ or on compilers too old to provide __ARCH__ >> > (and building for a more minimal baseline ISA would not be supported >> > on such compilers unless you manually add -D__ARCH__=5 or whatever to >> > CFLAGS). >> > >> > I'm fine with waiting to add those pp conditionals until if/when >> > someone actually wants to use the lower baseline ISA, if you don't >> > want to do it now. I am hesitant to add new ISA-forcing logic to >> > configure, though (see the other reply on that). Would it be bad to >> > have the build fail with low default -march? If so, maybe the >> > configure logic could check for !defined(__ARCH__) and then do a >> > compile test to define __ARCH__ on its own, and we could use the above >> > logic? >> > >> > Rich
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.