From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS17314 8.43.84.0/22 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 829571F8C8 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 2021 17:44:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB8B43857C48 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 2021 17:44:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from esa4.mentor.iphmx.com (esa4.mentor.iphmx.com [68.232.137.252]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E670385843B for ; Mon, 27 Sep 2021 17:42:11 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 5E670385843B Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codesourcery.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mentor.com IronPort-SDR: RJtUw78ya9fXMFTRe1sQBYKmz7FF1ip42HH8WFe0aI9tWRuad+3Wb24r+qB6i5yqgPGtraA8nl aQXgtciehQL4pHBO7FLq6qVUuGNeYAWKt+FGdtr2BLZ2L47Pl51Yw6M/UfmPRaC6v7RZSSqwC/ ijszDeiMn+lP/IJIWP97/UnKmIAnKM4oBNTPPrO4C0+B4nNtLSKDXdRJuFtG/ei62NnA1cLnGQ 5zqMb/NjwTHEmUmofOUurNZJHFylWr2LApuSIieKx8yyfMB8bmQBtLexXsSzIrH6HWYiAxt70p OkeRdmNFPyIQB7aABlbQnvYj X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.85,327,1624348800"; d="scan'208";a="66522470" Received: from orw-gwy-01-in.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.165]) by esa4.mentor.iphmx.com with ESMTP; 27 Sep 2021 09:42:10 -0800 IronPort-SDR: uX+3KiCAaab7wLEFCKz/+pH7aeBJWS1YxxNCA8RhVdBxyzIw2mocSW7LfVebG5dU2721FOorgV jAeWwBFzBMp+nE3/nwJDsihFoykirw5lXoT0CUCqhWGZsh5YP5arI7GrxIs8UKSD+5AdXO3kCS aeWNQCAzCGRLXAjnp4iOnJAhkqTLnSE1nD4JiMmZ0ofePNDmUVE/EOC/m9rQKk99CsljXD939N KGXPl2/wlnjl7oAkuYvtdI+TM+SeWgI4dK0hW7Gs73u0asJ8MCduQNzoNDfbSCl1S5filS6nlI 6pY= Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 17:42:05 +0000 From: Joseph Myers X-X-Sender: jsm28@digraph.polyomino.org.uk To: Florian Weimer Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] x86_64: Add support for bcmp using sse2, sse 4_1, avx2, and evex In-Reply-To: <875yumjx36.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <20210913230506.546749-1-goldstein.w.n@gmail.com> <02afac02-47a5-43a5-8437-79fdbbea62aa@www.fastmail.com> <87mtoerl85.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <875yumjx36.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (DEB 394 2020-01-19) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-Originating-IP: [137.202.0.90] X-ClientProxiedBy: SVR-IES-MBX-08.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.8) To svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Zack Weinberg via Libc-alpha , Zack Weinberg Errors-To: libc-alpha-bounces+e=80x24.org@sourceware.org Sender: "Libc-alpha" On Mon, 27 Sep 2021, Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha wrote: > * Noah Goldstein: > > > Is there some documentation for how to effectively use build-many-glibcs.py > > > > I've tried: > > > > $> python3 src/glibc/scripts/build-many-glibcs.py /some/were checkout gcc-vcs-11 > > (gcc-vcs-11 is actually the current default.) > > > $> python3 src/glibc/scripts/build-many-glibcs.py /some/were host-libraries > > $> python3 src/glibc/scripts/build-many-glibcs.py /some/were compilers > > $> python3 src/glibc/scripts/build-many-glibcs.py /some/were glibcs > > > > With GLIBC master I'm seeing a ton of failures so I'm not sure how I'm > > supposed to actually test my patches. > > Running build-many-glibcs.py is not a requirement for patch submission. > (One run that completes in a somewhat reasonable amount of time costs > 10 USD to 20 USD in the public cloud, after all.) However, it's certainly a good idea, when proposing a patch changing all the architecture-specific memcmp implementations to add a new alias, to test building at least one configuration using each such implementation (which is a smaller set than the full set of build-many-glibcs.py configurations). -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com