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-Status: No, score=-4.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, 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 9F53C1F990 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 07:52:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A0E13857C41; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 07:52:07 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 7A0E13857C41 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1596700327; bh=cSp04pc6Fp0qIwp2tBD29ydkrfAdwgmfYJzjLQpFWEg=; h=Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To: From; b=DPoL3zTDsY2S7KgJrByrbzA4Zbegq+8E13mHALj5sQsA9OW39/1JyXMaDqJVDqBqn TGJLNJp6tB/x/GxNNe6enw0V7hg1eu9lALT9ezw+vqQahWPIB1wTDVf6vOePk4reF0 +tZImOqyNF3eMW0QcROhPCHId2R7sGm3pGCRdjck= Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 142173858D37 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 07:52:05 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 142173858D37 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0767WUso056508 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 03:52:04 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 32r91b6v4b-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 06 Aug 2020 03:52:04 -0400 Received: from m0098419.ppops.net (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 0767WgGE057651 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 03:52:04 -0400 Received: from ppma06fra.de.ibm.com (48.49.7a9f.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [159.122.73.72]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 32r91b6v3t-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 06 Aug 2020 03:52:04 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 0767kWEs015065; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 07:52:02 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay09.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.194]) by ppma06fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 32mynhb6qe-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 06 Aug 2020 07:52:02 +0000 Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.60]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 0767q0Z432833914 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 6 Aug 2020 07:52:00 GMT Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 225B242047; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 07:52:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id F226242041; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 07:51:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from oc4452167425.ibm.com (unknown [9.145.187.238]) by d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 07:51:59 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] build-many-glibcs.py: Add some s390x glibc variants. To: Florian Weimer , Stefan Liebler via Libc-alpha References: <20200805144511.3482867-1-stli@linux.ibm.com> <87bljpumo0.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2020 09:51:59 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87bljpumo0.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-08-06_05:2020-08-06, 2020-08-06 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1015 priorityscore=1501 mlxlogscore=999 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2008060046 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: , From: Stefan Liebler via Libc-alpha Reply-To: Stefan Liebler Errors-To: libc-alpha-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Libc-alpha" On 8/5/20 5:39 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Stefan Liebler via Libc-alpha: > >> There is a s390x configure check which checks the architecture level set. >> >> This ALS influences e.g. which ifunc variants are needed or which one is >> the default variant or if the symbol will be an ifunc-symbol at all. >> >> The ALS also enables to use the gcc builtins for e.g. the round function >> in libm and others. >> >> Therefore this patch adds some glibc variants which are using different >> architecture level sets for s390x. > > Do these additional build targets actually result in build breakage? I've run the script with those new extra-glibcs and all passed. > > I'm not sure if anyone does run-time testing on build-many-glibcs.py > output. Sure, but I don't mean run-time testing. Usually all the available ifunc-variants are run-time tested with one "make check" invocation. I mean the build-time: If build with -march=zEC12, there are plenty IFUNC symbols (e.g. for the string functions). If build with -march=z15, there is no IFUNC symbol and the string functions equals the vector-string-functions introduced with z13. > > I would rather suggest adding an -O3 targets (maybe s390x due to its > inliner differences, and x86-64), where we know we have occasional build > breakage. This is a great idea. I will add -O3 for s390x/s390. > > Thanks, > Florian >