Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:00:21 +0400
From: Vasiliy Kulikov <>
Subject: Re: mpc, gmp, mpfr, gcc .specs


On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 05:21 +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> > and add compat support afterwards.
> You mean gcc 3.4.5's libstd++ binaries, right?

Yes.  Also I think we should have a well defined rules of what binary
compatibility Owl 4.0 should have - should it be binary compatible with
RHEL5?  RHEL6?  Other distros / ABI?  It would help us to identify what
legacy libraries we should build.

> Why?  Is this for build-time tests of optional SSE2-specific code that
> gets compiled in?  Does the installed package nevertheless work on CPUs
> lacking SSE2?  If these guesses are correct, then can we skip such tests
> when building on a CPU lacking SSE2, please?

I'm not sure.  I cannot test it as I have no machine without SSE2 :-) 

If the lack of SSE2 breaks tests only, is it a sufficient check? -

    %ifarch %ix86
    # Test SSE2 libraries only if we either have SSE2 CPU support
    # or we don't know whether we have it.
    if ! [ -e /proc/cpuinfo ] || grep -q sse2 /proc/cpuinfo; then
        cd build-sse2
        export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=`pwd`/.libs
        %__make check
        cd ..

> > mkdir %buildroot%_libdir/sse2
> > install -m 755 .libs/*.* %buildroot%_libdir/sse2
> ...
> What programs will access the sse2/ subdirectory?  How will they know to
> look for it?  Is this possibly something that will start working for us
> for real once we update glibc (dynamic linker)?

Not sure.  RHEL6 package has these files, so some binaries/libs might
depend on the files' presence and path.

Thanks for the fixes!


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.