On 2021-02-06 14:56 +0100, Frans de Boer wrote: > On 06/02/2021 14:34, Pierre Labastie wrote: > > On Sat, 2021-02-06 at 13:43 +0100, Frans de Boer wrote: > > > On 05/02/2021 21:35, Pierre Labastie wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2021-02-05 at 20:54 +0100, Frans de Boer wrote: > > > > > On 05/02/2021 20:16, Frans de Boer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 05/02/2021 16:25, xry...@mengyan1223.wang wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Frans, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you send the result of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > $LFS_TGT-readelf -a $LFS/lib/libc.so.6 | grep ISA > > > > > > > > > > > > The line '$LFS_TGT-readelf -a $LFS/lib/libc.so.6 | grep ISA' > > > > > returns > > > > > nothing. > > > > You need to use readelf from binutils 2.36. If you have back up to > > > > 2.35.1, it returns nothing. > > > > > > > > Pierre > > > > > > > Okay, I have recompiled ch5, ch6 and ch7 as well as up to and > > > including > > > glibc-2.33 and using binutils-2.36. > > > Attached is the result of that latest config.log (ch8). Other results > > > are found in previous messages. > > > > > > Also, the output of readelf in ch8: > > > Properties: x86 ISA needed: x86-64-baseline, x86-64-v2, x86-64-v3 > > > x86 ISA used: x86-64-baseline, x86-64-v2, x86-64-v3, x86-64-v4 > > AFAICT, no one among the editors have the first line. Only baseline is > > "needed", not v2 nor v3, although we have more recent CPUs. I cannot > > tell how this "needed" line is determined, but I see in config.log you > > have -march=native. Maybe you could try without any CFLAGS, and check > > that you do not have the v2 and v3 in "needed". > > > > BTW, you say you have the warning, but it does not stop the build does > > it? Everyone seems to have the warning in a couple of tests in binutils > > chapter 8 (ld tests). > > > with as contrast to the ch5 output: > > > Properties: x86 ISA needed: x86-64-baseline > > > x86 ISA used: x86-64-baseline, x86-64-v2, x86-64-v3, x86-64-v4 > > > > > > However, still getting the next message during testing. > > > '/sources-base/glibc-2.33/glibc-build/libc.so.6: CPU ISA level is > > > lower > > > than required' > > > > > > After the tests and install, I get the ISA message with everything I > > > do. > > > Maybe the x86_64-baseline is not the original baseline anymore, > > > thereby > > > making my processor and many others obsolete according to the glibc > > > devs? > > > Maybe adding --with-CPU to the configuration might help? > > Well, as said above, try without flags. Then you could add them one by > > one... > > > > Pierre > > > No, the tests do not stop because I use the 'make -k' option. But can't > run anything afterwards because of this error. > BTW, I just tried the --with-cpu=amdfam10 to configure. It halts stating > that this "subspecies" is not supported. > > So, it seems that the glibc dev where playing god and decided that > anything less then the newest processors should have no means to exist > anymore. So, I stick for now with the glib-2.32 version and continue later. > Maybe someone will figure out how to get rid of this absurd ISA level > check, blocking millions to billions of systems from future updates!!
Don't assume the upstream is trying to "fight against you". It's now reported and the upstream is trying to find a solution: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27318 For now the best workaround seems "don't use -march". -- Xi Ruoyao <xry...@mengyan1223.wang> School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
