On Saturday 14 March 2009 18:35:32 Bill Hart wrote: > OK, found the problem. Nocona now builds with core2 code. Can you > autoconf this and commit. >
I can install my old autotools on another machine, in a few hours. The new autotools require ylwrap , which I added with automake --add-missing ylwrap is used for parralel makes (which I certainly do) It's put it as a symbolic link though , I could copy the file itself commited anyway > So now we need to exclude those broken models after all. :-) > > No need for a full round of testing. We only need to check that > configure still works on all the machines we've tested for and just > randomly test a few full builds. > > Bill. > > 2009/3/14 Jason Moxham <ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com>: > > On Saturday 14 March 2009 18:13:00 Bill Hart wrote: > >> OK, but I'm still unclear why it doesn't pick up the files in the > >> core2 directory. That is what it should do based on the code that is > >> there. This means noconas are giving a generic C build, which I am > >> sure Gonzalo would have complained about by now if it was the case, > >> because he has a nocona. > > > > Perhaps he uses fat build? , which would think its a core2 > > > > There some references missing in configure.in , and a shed load of > > inconsistencies . I can fix but it means another round of testing > > > >> Bill. > >> > >> 2009/3/14 Jason Moxham <ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com>: > >> > On Saturday 14 March 2009 18:07:59 Bill Hart wrote: > >> >> I get: > >> >> > >> >> wbh...@sage:~/mpir-test$ ./configure --build=nocona-unknown-gnu-linux > >> >> checking build system type... Invalid configuration > >> >> `nocona-unknown-gnu-linux': machine `nocona-unknown-gnu' not > >> >> recognized > >> >> configure: error: /bin/bash ./config.sub nocona-unknown-gnu-linux > >> >> failed > >> >> > >> >> I think config.sub is broken. > >> > > >> > whoops linux-gnu not gnu-linux > >> > > >> >> Bill. > >> >> > >> >> 2009/3/14 Jason Moxham <ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com>: > >> >> > On Saturday 14 March 2009 17:59:00 Bill Hart wrote: > >> >> >> Are you sure about that: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> case $host in > >> >> >> x86_64-*-* | i786-*-*) > >> >> >> path_64="x86_64/amd64 x86_64" ;; > >> >> >> k10-*-*) > >> >> >> path_64="x86_64/amd64/k10 x86_64/amd64 x86_64" ;; > >> >> >> nocona-*-* | core2-*-*) > >> >> >> <<------------------------------------- > >> >> >> path_64="x86_64/core2 x86_64" ;; > >> >> >> <<------------------------------------- > >> >> >> esac > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Seems to use the core2 code. > >> >> > > >> >> > try with ./configure --build=nocona-unknown-gmu-linux and you get C > >> >> > and done on a real Pentium D as well > >> >> > > >> >> >> Bill. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> 2009/3/14 Jason Moxham <ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com>: > >> >> >> > On Saturday 14 March 2009 17:41:58 Jason Moxham wrote: > >> >> >> >> Early Intel CPUs with Intel 64 lacked LAHF and SAHF > >> >> >> >> instructions available in AMD64 until introduction of Pentium 4 > >> >> >> >> G1 step in December 2005. LAHF and SAHF are load and store > >> >> >> >> instructions, respectively, for certain status flags. These > >> >> >> >> instructions are used for virtualization and floating-point > >> >> >> >> condition handling. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> I'll find out model numbers soon > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > No need for MPIR-1.0.0 , all 64bit Pentium's default to nonoca > >> >> >> > which leads to a generic C build. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> On Saturday 14 March 2009 17:20:25 Gonzalo Tornaria wrote: > >> >> >> >> > On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Jason Moxham > >> >> >> >> > <ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > > I pretty sure all core2 cpus have lahf,sahf , it's just > >> >> >> >> > > some Pentium D dont have it . You can test the lahf_lm > >> >> >> >> > > feature bit in cpuid to see if it's got it > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > Tested in: > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > My laptop: model 6 / family 15 (core 2 duo T5300). > >> >> >> >> > My desktop is family 15 / model 6 (pentium D 930). > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > The "lahf_lm" feature is present in both according to > >> >> >> >> > /proc/cpuinfo. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > Note that the laptop is "low end" core 2 (in the sense it has > >> >> >> >> > no VT extensions). The pentium D is "high end" (in the sense > >> >> >> >> > it has VT extensions --- low end would be pentium D 8xx). > >> >> >> >> > Maybe that makes a difference? > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > OTOH, the kvm 64 bit virtual cpu (kvm 72) doesn't seem to > >> >> >> >> > know about the "lahf_lm" (meaning, it won't report it in > >> >> >> >> > cpuid, even if the host processor has it. I assume the > >> >> >> >> > instructions would work anyway.) > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > Gonzalo > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mpir-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to mpir-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mpir-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---