On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Mike Gilbert <flop...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Fernando Rodriguez
> <frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, March 21, 2015 8:46:10 AM Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Walter Dnes <waltd...@waltdnes.org> wrote:
>>> > CFLAGS="-O2 -march=atom -mno-cx16 -msahf -mmovbe -mno-aes -mno-pclmul -
>> mno-popcnt -mno-abm -mno-lwp -mno-fma -mno-fma4 -mno-xop -mno-bmi -mno-bmi2 -
>> mno-tbm -mno-avx -mno-avx2 -mno-sse4.2 -mno-sse4.1 -mno-lzcnt -mno-rtm -mno-
>> hle -mno-rdrnd -mno-f16c -mno-fsgsbase -mno-rdseed -mno-prfchw -mno-adx 
>> -mfxsr
>> -mno-xsave -mno-xsaveopt --param l1-cache-size=24 --param l1-cache-line-
>> size=64 --param l2-cache-size=512 -mtune=atom -fstack-protector -mfpmath=sse 
>> -
>> fomit-frame-pointer -pipe -fno-unwind-tables -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables"
>>> >
>>> >   Is that correct (assuming that's my output)?
>>> >
>>>
>>> I should warn you against including all of those -mno-xxx flags. This
>>> has been known to break the build process for packages like chromium,
>>> which always wants to build with SSE4 support and toggles it off at
>>> runtime. Passing -mno-sse4.1 causes a build failure as it tries to use
>>> macros that are not defined.
>>>
>>
>> Isn't it possible that removing it for all packages would cause a more subtle
>> problem with another faulty ebuild (like a program crashing due to an illegal
>> instruction)?
>
> Passing -march=atom should be sufficient to ensure that you don't get
> any illegal instructions. The -mno-XXX flags are redundant, and MOSTLY
> harmless.
>
> In the case of chromium, the build system adds -msse4.1 for specific
> files (just the ones using SSE4.1 instructons). When you have
> -mno-sse4.1, this takes precedence and the build fails.

To put it another way: back in the day before gcc -march=native,
nobody would have told you to put a bunch of -mno-xxx flags in your
global CFLAGS. They would have told you to find the -march setting
most appropriate for your processor.

Reply via email to