I updated to r1570 and tried --enable-fat under mingw32. I get the
error listed below. It looks like it trying to use 64-bit assembly.
Let me know if you need to see more information.
I appreciate the responsiveness of the MPIR developers.
Case
/bin/sh ../libtool --mode=compile --tag=CC ../strip_fPIC.sh
../yasm/yasm -f elf32 -D
GSYM_PREFIX -o amd64_submul_1.lo `test -f 'amd64_submul_1.as' || ec
ho './'`amd64_submul_1.as
../strip_fPIC.sh ../yasm/yasm -f elf32 -D GSYM_PREFIX
amd64_submul_1.as -o
amd64_submul_1.o
../yasm/yasm -f elf32 -D GSYM_PREFIX amd64_submul_1.as -o amd64_submul_1.o
/bin/sh ../libtool --tag=CC --mode=compile gcc -std=gnu99
-DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I . -I. -I..
-D__GMP_WITHIN_GMP -I.. -DOPERATION_`echo fat | sed 's/_$//'`
-m32 -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer
-mno-cygwin -c -o fat.lo fat.c
gcc -std=gnu99 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -D__GMP_WITHIN_GMP -I..
-DOPERA TION_fat -m32 -O2
-fomit-frame-pointer -mno-cygwin -c fat.c -o fat.o
In file included from ../gmp-impl.h:109,
from fat.c:31:
../fat.h:261: warning: type defaults to `int' in declaration of
`DECL_preinv _add_n'
../fat.h:261: warning: parameter names (without types) in function
declarati on
../fat.h:261: warning: data definition has no type or storage class
fat.c: In function `__gmpn_cpuvec_init':
fat.c:182: error: `CPUVEC_SETUP_x86' undeclared (first use in this function)
fat.c:182: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
fat.c:182: error: for each function it appears in.)
fat.c:213: error: `CPUVEC_SETUP_pentium' undeclared (first use in this
funct
On 1/18/09, Bill Hart <goodwillh...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't know what the bug is. Basically even a simple call to mpn_add_n fails.
>
> The function is defined by expanding a macro in fat_entry.asm (the
> name mpn_add_n comes from a list of functions called CPUVEC_FUNCS_LIST
> in /mpn/x86_64/fat/x86_64-defs.m4).
>
> Essentially in fat_entry.asm, the macro immediately after FAT_INIT
> loops through each instruction in CPUVEC_FUNCS_LIST and enters an
> offset for it into the cpuvec.
>
> The macro after FAT_ENTRY loops through each instruction in
> CPUVEC_FUNCS_LIST (e.g. __gmpn_add_n) and defines a function of that
> name and sets that function up to simply call the function pointer in
> the cpuvec.
>
> What's not clear to me is which functions end up getting called if
> there is more than one possibility available for the given processor.
> In the case of an AMD64 chip the instructions in /mpn/x86_64 and
> /mpn/x86_64/amd64 are both valid. In fat.c the first lot of
> instructions are set up automatically. Then when the CPUID returns a
> value indicating that an AMD64 chip is available, the latter
> instructions are set up.
>
> I thought the whole idea of a fat binary was that at run time the
> fastest instruction for the chip is chosen. But it looks to me like
> once _gmpn_cpuvec_init is run, a decision has already been made based
> on the CPUID. I guess this makes a portable binary, which is certainly
> not faster than just building GMP on the system that you want to run
> it on (when function pointers will not be required).
>
> Anyhow, either the wrong pointers are being put into the cpuvec or the
> functions which call the function pointers are broken. That means the
> bug is between lines 56 and 154 of fat_entry.asm. But I've been over
> the code numerous times and don't see it. There must be something
> different about how these pointers are supposed to be computed or
> called on a 64 bit machine (I've fixed the obvious - the pointers
> should be 64 bits instead of 32).
>
> Anyone have any ideas?
>
> Bill.
>
> 2009/1/19 Bill Hart <goodwillh...@googlemail.com>:
> > I fixed cpuid and committed the change. Everything works right through
> > to the end of fat.c now. But some of the tests still segfault.
> >
> > Possibly some of the code in /mpn/x86_64 has bugs. It's never run, as
> > everything we build for is either core2 or amd64 if it is 64 bit. Of
> > course a fat binary will try to run it.
> >
> > Bill.
> >
> > 2009/1/18 Bill Hart <goodwillh...@googlemail.com>:
> >> OK, I rewrote fat.c to work with the x86_64 cpus. This of course made
> >> it assemble fat_entry.asm which also requires some macros which were
> >> missing from x86_64-defs.m4. I fixed all this.
> >>
> >> Everything builds now, even make check. But make check segfaults. This
> >> will be because of the conversion of fat_entry.asm to 64 bit assembly.
> >> It's no doubt broken. It now needs to be rewritten properly. I
> >> especially expect that the functions cpuid and cpuid_available are
> >> broken.
> >>
> >> Bill.
> >>
> >> 2009/1/18 Bill Hart <goodwillh...@googlemail.com>:
> >>> Could that be because they are not declared using the MPN_PROTO
> >>> business in gmp-impl.h as I mentioned in a post a couple of days ago?
> >>>
> >>> Bill.
> >>>
> >>> 2009/1/18 <ja...@njkfrudils.plus.com>:
> >>>>
> >>>> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
