Re: [gentoo-dev] Package version requiring sse
On Thursday 25 August 2005 21:17, Martin Schlemmer wrote: On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 13:41 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote: On Wednesday 24 August 2005 15:23, Martin Schlemmer wrote: Same thing (and probably better option) if you put it in pkg_setup() ... Isn't pkg_setup run too when just building a binary package (-B) (then the check shouldn't be performed), and just before installing a binary package? True, but usually you build whatever on a machine that have capabilities to run it (not talking about cross-compiling). And besides, I think its bad style to build something, and then bail after its done about something that could have been tested at setup time (think glibc testing tls/nptl capabilities only during pkg_preinst ...). That's a different issue. The best way would be for some variable to be set that indicates that a package is going to be build for installation on the current host and not in a ROOT environment (the latter is easy). I agree though that testing afterwards is also not a good solution from a user interface perspective, locking the building of packages for a differnent host is also unwanted though. Alternatively we could also agree on an environment variable name that would be set if these kinds of checks should be overridden. People knowing what they're doing could then just use this I_KNOW_WHAT_IM_DOING flag and be off. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net pgp3Ozbv5coSI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Package version requiring sse
On Wednesday 24 August 2005 15:23, Martin Schlemmer wrote: Same thing (and probably better option) if you put it in pkg_setup() ... Isn't pkg_setup run too when just building a binary package (-B) (then the check shouldn't be performed), and just before installing a binary package? Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net pgp4YTk1bhe4y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Package version requiring sse
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 01:41:00PM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote: On Wednesday 24 August 2005 15:23, Martin Schlemmer wrote: Same thing (and probably better option) if you put it in pkg_setup() ... Isn't pkg_setup run too when just building a binary package (-B) (then the check shouldn't be performed), and just before installing a binary package? Yep, something that's rather unclean. Reinitializing the env for the local box I have no issue with, I just dislike re-running pkg_setup which also set's up vars for building. Alternatives welcome mind you... ~harring pgp4Szt4FBUsM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Package version requiring sse
On Thursday 25 August 2005 17:29, Brian Harring wrote: On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 01:41:00PM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote: On Wednesday 24 August 2005 15:23, Martin Schlemmer wrote: Same thing (and probably better option) if you put it in pkg_setup() ... Isn't pkg_setup run too when just building a binary package (-B) (then the check shouldn't be performed), and just before installing a binary package? Yep, something that's rather unclean. Reinitializing the env for the local box I have no issue with, I just dislike re-running pkg_setup which also set's up vars for building. Alternatives welcome mind you... ~harring Shouldn't pkg_preinst work? It should be run just before installation. The only thing is that the package is allready build before it's being tested. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net pgplBCDHBSAiA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Package version requiring sse
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 13:41 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote: On Wednesday 24 August 2005 15:23, Martin Schlemmer wrote: Same thing (and probably better option) if you put it in pkg_setup() ... Isn't pkg_setup run too when just building a binary package (-B) (then the check shouldn't be performed), and just before installing a binary package? True, but usually you build whatever on a machine that have capabilities to run it (not talking about cross-compiling). And besides, I think its bad style to build something, and then bail after its done about something that could have been tested at setup time (think glibc testing tls/nptl capabilities only during pkg_preinst ...). -- Martin Schlemmer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Package version requiring sse
On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 14:53 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote: On Saturday 06 August 2005 20:18, Jeff Walter wrote: Yuri Vasilevski wrote: Hi, On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 20:04:20 +0300 Ivan Yosifov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am not sure if it is better, but you can cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep flags | grep sse and die if not found. This will make packages dependant on the build system, which will create inconsistencies in binary gentoo packages. Yuri. This is true, and there's no good way around the issue. I had written a small script to actually search for the flag (grep'ing for sse will go true for sse2 as well), we I noticed this. Will valgrind 3.0.0 ever work on systems without sse? If not, the USE flag might be your best bet. Put a check on /proc/cpuinfo in pkg_preinst. This should get executed on the final machine, so not when building binary packages. Same thing (and probably better option) if you put it in pkg_setup() ... -- Martin Schlemmer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Package version requiring sse
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 06:13:56AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: that's pretty retarded imho ... this applies only to x86 right ? Yes, it does. The valgrind developers are currently waiting to see if it causes many complaints to see if they can prevent multiple code paths. To make people aware of this, I could use the sse use flag in 3.0.0 and die if it is not present, telling people to mask versions 3.0.0 and up if they have a processor without sse. I would also have to check the arch before requiring sse. seems the only sane way to handle this :( Alright, this is what I'll do then. Thanks, Maurice. -- Maurice van der Pot Gentoo Linux Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org Creator of BiteMe! [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kfk4ever.com pgpgQotxs3QjY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Package version requiring sse
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 16:15:32 +0200 Maurice van der Pot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | The new valgrind version (3.0.0) requires sse support. If you have a | processor without sse, you'll need to stay at 2.4.1. | | To make people aware of this, I could use the sse use flag in 3.0.0 | and die if it is not present, telling people to mask versions 3.0.0 | and up if they have a processor without sse. I would also have to | check the arch before requiring sse. | | Is there a better way to do this? We handle this kind of thing on SPARC (eg for vis and v9 code) by having subprofiles for the different CPU capabilities, and using masks in the appropriate subprofiles. Doing this could be a bit messy on x86 though, at least until we get full profile inheritance capabilities... -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm pgpOerRHjSYjU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Package version requiring sse
Yuri Vasilevski wrote: Hi, On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 20:04:20 +0300 Ivan Yosifov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am not sure if it is better, but you can cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep flags | grep sse and die if not found. This will make packages dependant on the build system, which will create inconsistencies in binary gentoo packages. Yuri. This is true, and there's no good way around the issue. I had written a small script to actually search for the flag (grep'ing for sse will go true for sse2 as well), we I noticed this. Will valgrind 3.0.0 ever work on systems without sse? If not, the USE flag might be your best bet. -- Jeff Walter -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
