~alpine/devel

3 3

[alpine-devel] Change to -march=i586 for x86?

Natanael Copa
Details
Message ID
<20150527142757.001268d6@ncopa-desktop.alpinelinux.org>
Sender timestamp
1432729677
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
Hi,

We currently build our x86 build with -march=i486. There was some old
soekris and alix(?) board that had cpu with 486 instruction set.

There are issues with mesa:

[ 12956.121] (EE) AIGLX error: dlopen
of /usr/lib/xorg/modules/dri/i915_dri.so failed (Error
relocating /usr/lib/xorg/modules/dri/i915_dri.so:
__sync_val_compare_and_swap_8: symbol not found)

This is because 64bit atomic ops are not available for i486.

mono and some other package (sems?) had similar issue. There are
probably more.

I think we want drop i486 support and move to -march=i586 or newer and
I think we want do that sooner than later.

The question is: What 32 bit architecture should we aim for? i586?
i686? Do we need/want support non PAE hardware?

What are the lowest boards people are using nowdays?

-nc


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---
Jean-Charles de Longueville
Details
Message ID
<5565C4BC.8050605@hellea.eu>
In-Reply-To
<20150527154543.10781fe2@vostro> (view parent)
Sender timestamp
1432732860
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
On 27/05/15 14:45, Timo Teras wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 2015 14:27:57 +0200
> Natanael Copa <ncopa@alpinelinux.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> We currently build our x86 build with -march=i486. There was some old
>> soekris and alix(?) board that had cpu with 486 instruction set.
> 
> ALIX is i586, but no PAE.
> 
>> There are issues with mesa:
>>
>> [ 12956.121] (EE) AIGLX error: dlopen
>> of /usr/lib/xorg/modules/dri/i915_dri.so failed (Error
>> relocating /usr/lib/xorg/modules/dri/i915_dri.so:
>> __sync_val_compare_and_swap_8: symbol not found)
>>
>> This is because 64bit atomic ops are not available for i486.
>>
>> mono and some other package (sems?) had similar issue. There are
>> probably more.
>>
>> I think we want drop i486 support and move to -march=i586 or newer and
>> I think we want do that sooner than later.
> 
> Agreed. I think edge should be moved to i586 during next gcc bump, or
> even perhaps immediately.
> 
>> The question is: What 32 bit architecture should we aim for? i586?
>> i686? Do we need/want support non PAE hardware?
>>
>> What are the lowest boards people are using nowdays?
> 
> I use still ALIX in some installs. So I'd want non-PAE support.
> 
> Thanks,
> Timo

I still have 5 old soekris and 1 alix board around. I had in mind to
reuse those with Alpine but did not took the time to do it yet. I may
check if current AL runs if it helps. I also have a box full of "bookPC"
but I guess those are i686 (but not sure).

-- 
Cordialement,
Jean-Charles de Longueville


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---
Timo Teras
Details
Message ID
<20150527154543.10781fe2@vostro>
In-Reply-To
<20150527142757.001268d6@ncopa-desktop.alpinelinux.org> (view parent)
Sender timestamp
1432730743
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
On Wed, 27 May 2015 14:27:57 +0200
Natanael Copa <ncopa@alpinelinux.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> We currently build our x86 build with -march=i486. There was some old
> soekris and alix(?) board that had cpu with 486 instruction set.

ALIX is i586, but no PAE.

> There are issues with mesa:
> 
> [ 12956.121] (EE) AIGLX error: dlopen
> of /usr/lib/xorg/modules/dri/i915_dri.so failed (Error
> relocating /usr/lib/xorg/modules/dri/i915_dri.so:
> __sync_val_compare_and_swap_8: symbol not found)
> 
> This is because 64bit atomic ops are not available for i486.
> 
> mono and some other package (sems?) had similar issue. There are
> probably more.
> 
> I think we want drop i486 support and move to -march=i586 or newer and
> I think we want do that sooner than later.

Agreed. I think edge should be moved to i586 during next gcc bump, or
even perhaps immediately.

> The question is: What 32 bit architecture should we aim for? i586?
> i686? Do we need/want support non PAE hardware?
>
> What are the lowest boards people are using nowdays?

I use still ALIX in some installs. So I'd want non-PAE support.

Thanks,
Timo


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---
Natanael Copa
Details
Message ID
<20150527173100.663ce3df@ncopa-desktop.alpinelinux.org>
In-Reply-To
<20150527154543.10781fe2@vostro> (view parent)
Sender timestamp
1432740660
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
On Wed, 27 May 2015 15:45:43 +0300
Timo Teras <timo.teras@iki.fi> wrote:

> On Wed, 27 May 2015 14:27:57 +0200
> Natanael Copa <ncopa@alpinelinux.org> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > We currently build our x86 build with -march=i486. There was some old
> > soekris and alix(?) board that had cpu with 486 instruction set.
> 
> ALIX is i586, but no PAE.
> 
> > There are issues with mesa:
> > 
> > [ 12956.121] (EE) AIGLX error: dlopen
> > of /usr/lib/xorg/modules/dri/i915_dri.so failed (Error
> > relocating /usr/lib/xorg/modules/dri/i915_dri.so:
> > __sync_val_compare_and_swap_8: symbol not found)
> > 
> > This is because 64bit atomic ops are not available for i486.
> > 
> > mono and some other package (sems?) had similar issue. There are
> > probably more.
> > 
> > I think we want drop i486 support and move to -march=i586 or newer and
> > I think we want do that sooner than later.
> 
> Agreed. I think edge should be moved to i586 during next gcc bump, or
> even perhaps immediately.

Would be nice to fix it asap yes.

We need a workaround for v3.2. I might do: CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -march=i586"
for mesa for now. I don't know how to solve it otherwise.

https://bugs.alpinelinux.org/issues/4254

> 
> > The question is: What 32 bit architecture should we aim for? i586?
> > i686? Do we need/want support non PAE hardware?
> >
> > What are the lowest boards people are using nowdays?
> 
> I use still ALIX in some installs. So I'd want non-PAE support.

good. then we keep kernel non-PAE. Alternatively we could have a
separate non-PAE kernel config, but i would prefer not for now.


> 
> Thanks,
> Timo



---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---