Re: libgcrypt clang asm configure issue.

[Jacob Bachmeyer via Gnupg-users]

Dmytro Kovalov wrote:

Hello Jacob ,

Thanks for the fast response!

So you mentioned the problem is in clang ATT compatibility. But could 
you please confirm the UAL supports ATT style , because I haven't 
found any information there.


UAL is ?

The key hint here for me was that you mentioned removing '%' from 
register names; the use of '%' in that context is (as far as I know) 
characteristic of "AT&T syntax" assembler, which the GNU assembler 
generally supports, even for processors where the vendor assembler is 
radically different.  (x86 is a good example, where GNU as has both AT&T 
syntax and Intel syntax modes.)



-- Jacob

___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: Difference between versions--Question

[Ingo Klöcker]

On Montag, 31. Oktober 2022 10:23:10 CET K S via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Question:
> Why aren't those identical? I notice the source build has only
> Uncompressed as an option.
[...]
> Is there something I missed in my build?

configure most likely didn't find the development files of the compression 
libraries. Check the output of configure.

Regards,
Ingo


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: libgcrypt clang asm configure issue.

[Dmytro Kovalov via Gnupg-users]

Hello Jacob ,

Thanks for the fast response!

So you mentioned the problem is in clang ATT compatibility. But could you
please confirm the UAL supports ATT style , because I haven't found any
information there.

Thanks,
Best Regards.

On Mon, 31 Oct 2022, 04:56 Jacob Bachmeyer,  wrote:

> Dmytro Kovalov via Gnupg-users wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I found a strange libgcrypt behavior on ARM with clang built.
> >
> > There is a big gap in performance of libgcrypt, built by clang, in
> > comparison with gcc on my ARM target machine.
> > The simple profile test shows 100-500% advantage of gcc gcrypt.
> > I found an awkward workaround to beat this issue, but need your help
> > to find the best way to fix it.
> >
> > The root cause is next:
> > Due to clang strict assembler syntax rules the unified assembler ARM
> > check doesn't pass.
> > Assembler check fails while ./configure for flags:
> > HAVE_COMPATIBLE_GCC_ARM_PLATFORM_AS
> > HAVE_GCC_INLINE_ASM_NEON
> >
> > As a workaround I remove '%' from registers names in
> > configure.ac  
> >,
> > arm mips lib *.S files,
> > cipher/*arm.S,*armv7-neon.S files.
> >
> > Could you please help with a more correct - polite way to compile
> > libgcrypt with assembler code?
>
> I would suggest using the GNU toolchain. :-)
>
> The problem is that the GNU assembler traditionally expects register
> names to be prefixed with %, using a syntax based on that of the old
> AT&T assembler and known (simply enough) as "AT&T syntax" while many
> vendor assemblers use a different syntax. Note that the configure tests
> in question are for GCC-or-strictly-compatible. If clang does not
> support the GNU assembler syntax, then it is not fully compatible with
> GCC, and libgcrypt is being compiled correctly.
>
> Since LLVM claims compatibility with GCC, you should direct your
> complaints there: CLang apparently claims compatibility with the GNU
> toolchain, but does not support GNU assembler syntax.
>
>
> -- Jacob
>
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users