From patchwork Fri Mar 14 15:30:40 2014 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: "H.J. Lu" X-Patchwork-Id: 330357 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85A7C2C00BB for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2014 02:30:50 +1100 (EST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b= sYW8EQO20gal3qOC1+hV0dOvLtfr9sUFJOgjcCRCG/ZQB6ngS7vDx+mrEjiW9w+b K/qSmroYC3i8YHY/dYhAYNqkZKEx2NBGuphTZOG+RouIJ0T+nJcNW8+MOH5ZTl56 RN4A8u+vWneYamfpz/4RTVb9+55E/iQoUCYeuRrar3k= 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:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; s=default; bh=zfc9i mCYHooR8w35JY2xFKw40LI=; b=gkfDNgb9RH/ieIf+soNJCnawd37/8WQ8vbo7p o4mZZ7+x7CllqWfWrFXAESAr7jzcMyLaj988ElmUsLmFO45xLJeq4+5ItQEog05z UtkEvZx+ZyEEStny+RoCOqSL5kg8RE5ZlNQg/Dw8MUZsuRcH2pHylEtTPb+6Olkj 4737oE= Received: (qmail 4962 invoked by alias); 14 Mar 2014 15:30:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Delivered-To: mailing list libc-alpha@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 4944 invoked by uid 89); 14 Mar 2014 15:30:43 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-oa0-f43.google.com MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.81.197 with SMTP id c5mr7431513oby.40.1394811040953; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 08:30:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 08:30:40 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Commit 2d63a517e4084ec80403cd9f278690fa8b676cc4 From: "H.J. Lu" To: Paul Pluzhnikov Cc: Igor Zamyatin , GLIBC Devel On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 7:41 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote: >> After latest commit: >> >> commit 2d63a517e4084ec80403cd9f278690fa8b676cc4 >> Author: Igor Zamyatin >> Date: Thu Mar 13 11:10:22 2014 -0700 >> >> Save and restore AVX-512 zmm registers to x86-64 ld.so >> ... >> >> "make check" fails like this for me: >> >> >> /tmp/ccJEXrrY.s: Assembler messages: >> /tmp/ccJEXrrY.s:47: Error: no such instruction: `vmovdqa64 %zmm0,-176(%rbp)' >> /tmp/ccJEXrrY.s:51: Error: bad register name `%zmm0' >> /tmp/ccJEXrrY.s:57: Error: no such instruction: `vmovdqa64 %zmm1,-240(%rbp)' >> /tmp/ccJEXrrY.s:58: Error: no such instruction: `vmovdqa64 %zmm2,-304(%rbp)' >> /tmp/ccJEXrrY.s:59: Error: no such instruction: `vmovdqa64 %zmm3,-368(%rbp)' >> /tmp/ccJEXrrY.s:60: Error: no such instruction: `vmovdqa64 %zmm4,-432(%rbp)' >> /tmp/ccJEXrrY.s:61: Error: no such instruction: `vmovdqa64 %zmm5,-496(%rbp)' >> /tmp/ccJEXrrY.s:62: Error: no such instruction: `vmovdqa64 %zmm6,-560(%rbp)' >> /tmp/ccJEXrrY.s:63: Error: no such instruction: `vmovdqa64 %zmm7,-624(%rbp)' >> /tmp/ccJEXrrY.s:65: Error: no such instruction: `vmovdqa64 %zmm0,-112(%rbp)' >> /tmp/ccJEXrrY.s:84: Error: bad register name `%zmm0' >> /tmp/ccJEXrrY.s:90: Error: no such instruction: `vmovdqa64 %zmm0,-112(%rbp)' >> ... >> make[2]: *** [/build/elf/tst-auditmod10a.os] Error 1 >> >> >> Likely my binutils/as are too old. Should this test be conditional? > > You have GCC 4.9 and a very old binutils. We didn't test this combination. I am testing this patch. It checks AVX-512 assembler support first and sets libc_cv_cc_avx512 to $libc_cv_asm_avx512, instead of yes. GCC won't support AVX-512 if assembler doesn't support it. I will check it in if all tests pass. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thanks. diff --git a/sysdeps/x86_64/configure.ac b/sysdeps/x86_64/configure.ac index 5e5d61b..d34f9a8 100644 --- a/sysdeps/x86_64/configure.ac +++ b/sysdeps/x86_64/configure.ac @@ -23,15 +23,6 @@ if test $libc_cv_cc_avx = yes; then fi LIBC_CONFIG_VAR([config-cflags-avx], [$libc_cv_cc_avx]) -dnl Check if -mavx512f works. -AC_CACHE_CHECK(for AVX512 support, libc_cv_cc_avx512, [dnl -LIBC_TRY_CC_OPTION([-mavx512f], [libc_cv_cc_avx512=yes], [libc_cv_cc_avx512=no]) -]) -if test $libc_cv_cc_avx512 = yes; then - AC_DEFINE(HAVE_AVX512_SUPPORT) -fi -LIBC_CONFIG_VAR([config-cflags-avx512], [$libc_cv_cc_avx512]) - dnl Check if asm supports AVX512. AC_CACHE_CHECK(for AVX512 support in assembler, libc_cv_asm_avx512, [dnl