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=F06hnG4KPgwCUpYw e2oqwFSVXHgeCToS0VydSJQhWR89lzQH0KGtdIxsATUOVnesF4UBeS9qbav5tqXc X5cFtAc+Cj1jh1EcW0x5GtsNz6nvOAY25FvyMMZINys+0ZFEDDzDC7hlBEM8izBO lXdEcby+EXLdHzCjPiUY/E16AzU= 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=z8lXR7l/DdtRX6JvT72I2N nSwHo=; b=BuTiTwo2Oo7hHnwD4BqadoMZOJvm5TPpbYE94urRi7+ccruQxo1oj7 wa70vnZK1KyQ76XEW0OHL+MSEQCpfcNbpA0WzBQ0htAVdjCNivdRD7QkuxtyP8cU thgMhJZzl4ey93JY5FC6TPJ6iKF89zRvL/1LvLFUGliRBK3tjxs9k= Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-spam-relays-external:64.59.136.139, H*RU:64.59.136.139, H*R:D*ca, H*Ad:D*ab.ca X-HELO: smtp-out-so.shaw.ca X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=T/3OdLCQ c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=WqCeCkldcEjBO3QZneQsCg==:117 a=WqCeCkldcEjBO3QZneQsCg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=Ht5tn1ujAAAA:8 a=w_pzkKWiAAAA:8 a=CA6zTxPPAp30aBbe6WYA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=aduRKlZqP6AA:10 a=kL8obnqTufAA:10 a=1q4o9xxPUSlvU2X7lM25:22 a=sRI3_1zDfAgwuvI8zelB:22 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:

<4385bf7b-8025-4546-7ce4-aa3d83ab76a9 AT SystematicSw DOT ab DOT ca> To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: Brian Inglis Message-ID: Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 01:18:00 -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: <4385bf7b-8025-4546-7ce4-aa3d83ab76a9@SystematicSw.ab.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfDkYMCaHjRlssIiLc5TaJRPkkp7ZjBohh6BFijfwr9aI4KISpbaOBnBQQBaArHCn9LJvrsvvD63yg6IweBn3/peSrYK5TRtlfzdSqqRsjwj7JLLiDrXC MYce9sa+AlfCnGnvLRArxsGziD4M+K9iubY+9km+diZenwLYIZ1O5Djqanv8xBzsjoY6Pl6KQQ0nXQ== X-IsSubscribed: yes On 2016-08-27 22:57, Brian Inglis wrote: > 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. See also https://gmplib.org/repo/gmp-6.1/rev/30c9cf97935a and https://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2015-11/msg00071.html where GMP enabled avx support on all Broadwell cpus. If you submit a GMP bug report with /proc/cpuinfo output and a link to your gcc bug, they should be able to add a case to support mobile Broadwells without AVX support in a fat binary. -- 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