On Sunday 18 January 2009 21:25:10 Bill Hart wrote: runing strings on the libgmp.a I notice we have namespace pollution from all the new gcd stuff and mpn_modexact_1odd
> I've checked that exactly the same files are compiled and linked when > working on a 64 bit machine as on a 32 bit machine. > > It looks like gmp-impl.h defines __gmpn_cpuvec as being external. I > was wrong about this being defined in fat.h, it is merely used there. > > The definition of __gmpn_cpuvec is actually in /mpn/x86_64/fat/fat.c. > This is defined unconditionally in there, so this file is somehow not > being linked into the library on a 64 bit machine. But I still don't > know why. > > Bill. > > 2009/1/18 Bill Hart <goodwillh...@googlemail.com>: > > Nope that wasn't it. I fixed that problem and committed a fix, but the > > original problem still remains. > > > > Bill. > > > > 2009/1/18 Bill Hart <goodwillh...@googlemail.com>: > >> I think I have a clue. I can't get any of the tests in /tests/mpn to > >> work. They all bomb out. > >> > >> Looking in configure.in I see that for a 32 bit x86 build it puts > >> path="x86/fat x86" but for the 64 bit build I had path_64="x86_64 > >> x86_64/fat" with the directories in the opposite order. When I > >> autoconf and try to configure again it bombs out with: > >> > >> checking size of mp_limb_t... 8 > >> configure: error: Oops, mp_limb_t is 64 bits, but the assembler code > >> in this configuration expects 32 bits. > >> > >> So there is something inherently 32 bit about the files in > >> /mpn/x86_64/fat (which is not a surprise, as I copied them from > >> /mpn/x86/fat). > >> > >> Probably if we fix this it will work. > >> > >> Bill. > >> > >> 2009/1/18 Bill Hart <goodwillh...@googlemail.com>: > >>> Yeah that is interesting. It might be a clue. > >>> > >>> The funny thing is, everything we need is defined in fat.h (which is > >>> created by configure). But fat.h is included by gmp-impl.h if > >>> WANT_FAT_BINARY is set, which it is if config.h is included, which it > >>> is if we don't have __GMP_WITHIN_CONFIGURE set, which is only set by > >>> configure itself when running. > >>> > >>> So I just don't see why it isn't picking up the requisite stuff from > >>> fat.h. > >>> > >>> Bill. > >>> > >>> 2009/1/18 <ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com>: > >>>> On Sunday 18 January 2009 18:59:46 Bill Hart wrote: > >>>>> did it get to addmul or lshift yet? > >>>> > >>>> I'm not entirely sure , but these are the only functions that give > >>>> errors eg make t-mul in the tests/mpz directory > >>>> > >>>>> I don't know what is different about them. They are done in a pretty > >>>>> similar way to addmul_1 and submul_1. > >>>>> > >>>>> Bill. > >>>>> > >>>>> 2009/1/18 <ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com>: > >>>>> > On Sunday 18 January 2009 18:45:35 Bill Hart wrote: > >>>>> >> That's likely because by the time those reference functions are > >>>>> >> used, the actual mpn functions referred to have already been > >>>>> >> tested. > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> I don't think this can be the issue anyway, as everything works > >>>>> >> fine on a 32 bit machine. > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> The actual error I got was a red herring anyway. The actual > >>>>> >> __gmp_cpuvec that we are after is defined in /mpn/x86_64/fat.c. > >>>>> >> Somehow it isn't picking this file up when building libtests.la or > >>>>> >> something in it. > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> Bill. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > make[4]: `libtests.la' is up to date. > >>>>> > /bin/sh ../libtool --tag=CC --mode=link gcc -std=gnu99 -O2 -m64 > >>>>> > -o t-bswap t-bswap.o libtests.la ../libgmp.la > >>>>> > gcc -std=gnu99 -O2 -m64 -o .libs/t-bswap > >>>>> > t-bswap.o ./.libs/libtests.a > >>>>> > /root/mpir/mpir/mpir/trunk/.libs/libgmp.so ../.libs/libgmp.so > >>>>> > /root/mpir/mpir/mpir/trunk/.libs/libgmp.so: undefined reference to > >>>>> > `__gmpn_sub_n' > >>>>> > /root/mpir/mpir/mpir/trunk/.libs/libgmp.so: undefined reference to > >>>>> > `__gmpn_cpuvec_init' > >>>>> > /root/mpir/mpir/mpir/trunk/.libs/libgmp.so: undefined reference to > >>>>> > `__gmpn_cpuvec' > >>>>> > /root/mpir/mpir/mpir/trunk/.libs/libgmp.so: undefined reference to > >>>>> > `__gmpn_add_n' > >>>>> > collect2: ld returned 1 exit status > >>>>> > > >>>>> > Only add and sub have a problem , not addmul or lshift , whats > >>>>> > different about them? > >>>>> > > >>>>> >> 2009/1/18 <ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com>: > >>>>> >> > On Sunday 18 January 2009 17:26:54 Bill Hart wrote: > >>>>> >> >> As a further data point make check works on cicero (which is a > >>>>> >> >> 32 bit x86 Pentium 4) with --enable-fat. So I don't see why it > >>>>> >> >> shouldn't work on a 64 bit machine. > >>>>> >> >> > >>>>> >> >> Bill. > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > refmpn.c and refmpf.c have some referances to plain mpn_fn , > >>>>> >> > change these to refmpn_fn > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > this clears up some of the errors.... > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> >> 2009/1/18 Bill Hart <goodwillh...@googlemail.com>: > >>>>> >> >> > I've hacked up "support" for --enable-fat on x86_64. It's a > >>>>> >> >> > bit hackish (though I think the 32 bit fat support was > >>>>> >> >> > already hackish). > >>>>> >> >> > > >>>>> >> >> > At this moment however, make check will not build, with > >>>>> >> >> > error: > >>>>> >> >> > > >>>>> >> >> > ./.libs/libtests.a(refmpn.o): In function > >>>>> >> >> > `refmpn_mod_34lsub1': refmpn.c:(.text+0x1f3): undefined > >>>>> >> >> > reference to `__gmpn_cpuvec' > >>>>> >> >> > > >>>>> >> >> > etc. Now refmpn.c #include gmp-impl.h which defines > >>>>> >> >> > __gmpn_cpuvec on line 3783 *provided* WANT_FAT_BINARY is > >>>>> >> >> > defined and set (see line 3753). The thing is, make requires > >>>>> >> >> > that to be set in order to build a fat binary in the first > >>>>> >> >> > place. Surely configure configures this the same for make and > >>>>> >> >> > for make check. So I honestly don't know why make check > >>>>> >> >> > fails. If anyone has any insight into this, please let me > >>>>> >> >> > know. > >>>>> >> >> > > >>>>> >> >> > I'll now mention some of the more hackish aspects of getting > >>>>> >> >> > --enable- fat to work on x86_64: > >>>>> >> >> > > >>>>> >> >> > * I removed the check for HAVE_HOST_CPU_FAMILY_x86 on line > >>>>> >> >> > 3753 of gmp- impl.h. This was hackish. Obviously configure > >>>>> >> >> > should not continue if fat binary is not supported on the > >>>>> >> >> > host cpu. It shouldn't be left until this point to determine > >>>>> >> >> > that. I did try to add a > >>>>> >> >> > HAVE_HOST_CPU_FAMILY_x86_64 flag, but for some reason I > >>>>> >> >> > couldn't get it to work. > >>>>> >> >> > > >>>>> >> >> > * I had to put a modified copy of yasm_mac.inc in /mpn and > >>>>> >> >> > /mpn/ x86_64. Now it inserts suffices on function names when > >>>>> >> >> > calling the macro GLOBAL_FUNC. Only when building a fat > >>>>> >> >> > binary does it refer to these copies of yasm_mac.inc instead > >>>>> >> >> > of the one in the root of the source tree, thus suffices will > >>>>> >> >> > not be added for a normal build. > >>>>> >> >> > > >>>>> >> >> > * I had to copy /mpn/x86/fat/* into /mpn/x86_64/fat. But note > >>>>> >> >> > that I have not defined any 64 bit family/model/stepping > >>>>> >> >> > values in the fake CPUID tables in fat.c as of yet. This > >>>>> >> >> > probably means that the fat binary which is build does > >>>>> >> >> > nothing. But someone can add the relevant CPUID values if > >>>>> >> >> > they feel so inspired. > >>>>> >> >> > > >>>>> >> >> > * Probably a fat binary build on x86_64 doesn't work on 64 > >>>>> >> >> > bit Windows (I'm not talking about MSVC here, but something > >>>>> >> >> > like Cygwin64 if and when it exists). because the filenames > >>>>> >> >> > with suffices are longer than the usual 8.3 format. I don't > >>>>> >> >> > know if this is a problem or not, but it might be. > >>>>> >> >> > > >>>>> >> >> > * Configure almost certainly can't find functions in > >>>>> >> >> > multifunction yasm assembler files implemented with macros. > >>>>> >> >> > It has no idea how to interpret the macro language of yasm. > >>>>> >> >> > Thus functions probably won't be picked up from multifunction > >>>>> >> >> > files. Whilst we use macros, we currently have separate files > >>>>> >> >> > for each of the macro'd functions, so this is actually not a > >>>>> >> >> > problem at present (it infers the function names from the > >>>>> >> >> > filenames alone if they are not actually implemented as > >>>>> >> >> > multifunction files). But it will break when we fix > >>>>> >> >> > multifunction support. > >>>>> >> >> > > >>>>> >> >> > Lots of other hacking was required to get this far. But the > >>>>> >> >> > above is the worst of it. I'll add it to a trac ticket for > >>>>> >> >> > someone with more patience than myself to fix. > >>>>> >> >> > > >>>>> >> >> > Bill. > >>>>> >> >> > > >>>>> >> >> > On Jan 15, 1:25 am, "Bill Hart" <goodwillh...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >>>>> >> >> >> 2009/1/15 Bill Hart <goodwillh...@googlemail.com>: > >>>>> >> >> >> > The problem with --enable-fat on 64 bit systems is that it > >>>>> >> >> >> > searches the 64 bit assembly directories for functions but > >>>>> >> >> >> > sets the fat directories to the 32 bit x86 directories. > >>>>> >> >> >> > This can easily be fixed. Lines 1457-1476 of configure.in > >>>>> >> >> >> > need to be replicated for the following case statement > >>>>> >> >> >> > which deals with 64 bit machines, but with the correct > >>>>> >> >> >> > directories set. > >>>>> >> >> >> > >>>>> >> >> >> Actually this won't quite directly work. The reason is that > >>>>> >> >> >> in order to determine which functions it should include in > >>>>> >> >> >> the fat binary, it looks for PROLOGUE(mpn_fnname) in the > >>>>> >> >> >> assembly files. We don't use that macro in the x86_64 > >>>>> >> >> >> assembly code (which is in yasm format). > >>>>> >> >> >> > >>>>> >> >> >> We could fix this by modifying what it looks for > >>>>> >> >> >> appropriately on x86_64. We should be looking for > >>>>> >> >> >> GLOBAL_FUNC mpn_fnname instead. > >>>>> >> >> >> > >>>>> >> >> >> Bill. > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mpir-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to mpir-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mpir-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
