X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:reply-to:subject:references:to:from:message-id
	:date:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=pGLhU8ST8hfmGxhR
	g5RREpqUMj75DdBhF92ggjGTyFHcBn57b6xKjjGFrn116BgpMZxSwe04J8EBv/S9
	NfYAWD1vzGQDNEQomQo5WrNssw/ChSrrFFRlf/9M5NvJ2ZE7RzvySI1F3oKT8ZTf
	sOvn2glpScyDUGOzM5Aox74BWL0=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:reply-to:subject:references:to:from:message-id
	:date:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=NbQwCDFVWv0ApB66yVByN8
	+DMrc=; b=eLb5A7mnEqlm6R5CyP7cxVkXE2350GZUIWEqKfKIzvwFxX3O95kHk3
	c7JsoD7Ise8E8bla77A6LCBABIHEjsaadk9H0Ka0AdYKSh7Ojp7OKWYAf3K8ypj1
	L1ub7DEpLdGQs9R4JrL+f/yGi01aIRKsNmUEmSTnQIQI5ibjLcwWA=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found:	No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*RU:64.59.134.12, Hx-spam-relays-external:64.59.134.12, subroutines, mpc
X-HELO:	smtp-out-no.shaw.ca
X-Authority-Analysis:	v=2.2 cv=VYS1Bxh9 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=WqCeCkldcEjBO3QZneQsCg==:117 a=WqCeCkldcEjBO3QZneQsCg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=qgud2pELePFRXvHuT-0A:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10
Reply-To:	Brian DOT Inglis AT SystematicSw DOT ab DOT ca
Subject:	Re: I sent in a bug report and never heard anything back
References:	<e4f9f62e-ec33-0c68-42b1-d157262d4590 AT jeffunit DOT com> <ba03a26e-0ce6-8f5b-b070-04d4c3ea7ba3 AT jeffunit DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	Brian Inglis <Brian DOT Inglis AT SystematicSw DOT ab DOT ca>
Message-ID:	<4385bf7b-8025-4546-7ce4-aa3d83ab76a9@SystematicSw.ab.ca>
Date:	Sat, 27 Aug 2016 22:57:30 -0600
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<ba03a26e-0ce6-8f5b-b070-04d4c3ea7ba3@jeffunit.com>
X-CMAE-Envelope:	MS4wfDLujAJy59n2bGme1eL4a+A5mDnYuLa7+MQsy/Y97XADuz8cMPSQkJjw89BEKTQxDmPVZY9/pKJt0jWhDKwQPT+wIVHtJA30YBPfdBUVI4Pcmfy1uNHo Htn3/4i/GAmXh1fZggRfO2Y5Qplv/wqEBNC2W+mytmoD0I42yK7cFDhsQOAdqaDvwfwl4jsYxgDG/w==
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

On 2016-08-27 10:27, jeff wrote:
> Brian Inglis wrote:
> Apparently it's a mobile Broadwell without AVX or AVX2,
> which might be assumed present in gcc as compiled,
> requiring a custom gcc build to run on that cpu.
> My reply:
> You are correct. The gcc people replied to my bug report with:
> "So the problem is your GMP/MPFR are compiled for one type of CPU and cannot be
> copied to other type."
> They closed it as a resolved issue.
> So the problem is that gcc now requires GMP, and GMP was compiled with options that
> are not compatible with my CPU. I can fix the issue for myself by compiling everything
> from scratch.
> The bigger issue is can cygwin distribute a version of gcc that will work with all modern
> processors, including mine, with it's weird lack of AVX and AVX2. Since I ran into the
> issue, I suspect anyone else with a mobile processor like mine will run into the issue.
> I don't know enough about how cygwin is built and installed to know how different versions
> of the GMP library might be distributed for different Intel processors.
> But the problem is not going to go away, and really should be addressed in order to make
> cygwin run on all reasonable platforms.

You could download devel sources for the MPC, MPFR, GMP, ISL, and
CLOOG packages to check what options are used for the builds and
whether AVX options are assumed on Broadwell cpus.

GMP provides a build option, which could cause such a problem:
"Fat binary, --enable-fat
     Using --enable-fat selects a “fat binary” build on x86,
where optimized low level subroutines are chosen at runtime according
to the CPU detected.
This means more code, but gives good performance on all x86 chips.
(This option might become available for more architectures in the future.)"

These libraries should be designed to run code either independent of,
or dependent only on available, cpu features, but checks may not be
sufficiently specific for newer variants.

You may want to try searching for and filing bugs against GMP and/or
MPFR with a link back to the GCC report, unless someone hereabouts
can provide more specific info about a possible failure source.

-- 
Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -