Hi guys, I've got the machine in question. This patch you attached won't apply to the latest hg. It appears to have been already applied, so I'm comparing the hg tip (16317:07a2dde2c971) vs the last log entry before BMI2 is mentioned (16313:8b074a2e0134).
Mercurial tip: =============== config.guess: coreisbr-unknown-linux-gnu Check without fat: All Pass Check with fat: All Pass Mercurial Pre-BMI2 changes: =============== config.guess: coreihwl-unknown-linux-gnu Check without fat: Illegal instruction Check with fat: Illegal instruction The changes seems to work as intended. - Tim On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Torbjorn Granlund <t...@gmplib.org> wrote: > John Sully <j...@csquare.ca> writes: > > The proposed patch is: > --- a/mpn/x86_64/fat/fat.c Sun Feb 16 07:08:24 2014 +0100 > +++ b/mpn/x86_64/fat/fat.c Wed Feb 19 23:47:40 2014 -0500 > @@ -292,7 +292,9 @@ > CPUVEC_SETUP_core2; > CPUVEC_SETUP_coreinhm; > CPUVEC_SETUP_coreisbr; > - CPUVEC_SETUP_coreihwl; > + long featihwm = __gmpn_cpuid (dummy_string, 7); > + if ( featihwm & (1 << 8) ) //check BMI2 > + CPUVEC_SETUP_coreihwl; > break; > } > break; > > > I am at loss about the logics of your change. I don't think `featihwm' > will contain anything useful since (1) ecx is not set to zero by > __gmpn_cpuid as it should for this inquiry and (2) rax has a useless > value unrelated to BMI2 regardless of ecx input. The bit to check is in > ebx (stored at dummy_string[0...3]). > > Do you agree? > > I made what I think are the correct changes. Please remove your patch > and try the attached one instead: > > > > Please try both a plain build (without --enable-fat) and a fat build > (with --enable-fat) and run "make && make check". > > What does config.guess output with this change (and before the change) > for your system? > > > Torbjörn > > _______________________________________________ gmp-devel mailing list gmp-devel@gmplib.org https://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-devel
