On 1/19/09, Bill Hart <goodwillh...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Hi Case, > > can you run ./config.guess for us on your machine (it is in the main > directory of the source tree for MPIR). You may need to set > permissions first by doing chmod 755 config.guess
$ ./config.guess core2-pc-mingw32 > You're right. It isn't fully figuring out that it needs to be doing 32 > bit assembly on this machine. Probably we need to recognise that it is > mingw and force it to use ABI=32 throughout. > > Bill. > > 2009/1/19 Case Vanhorsen <cas...@gmail.com>: > > > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
