| Message ID | 6fc797b4ee3c49cb7fb730b4ba1664a733ebf0df.1694720820.git.raingloom@riseup.net |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [bug#65903,v2] gnu: Make vice tunable. | expand |
Hi, raingloom <raingloom@riseup.net> skribis: > From: Csepp <raingloom@riseup.net> > > * gnu/packages/emulators.scm (vice)[properties]: Set tunable? to #t. > --- > gnu/packages/emulators.scm | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/gnu/packages/emulators.scm b/gnu/packages/emulators.scm > index 1d50c9ef01..0fb4a5853b 100644 > --- a/gnu/packages/emulators.scm > +++ b/gnu/packages/emulators.scm > @@ -118,6 +118,8 @@ (define-public vice > (package > (name "vice") > (version "3.7.1") > + ;; without this it would use AVX even when it's not suported: Oh I see. It’s a problem that ‘tunable?’ in itself doesn’t solve. The fix would be twofold: (1) remove ‘-march’ and similar compiler arguments that cause it to generate code that assumes AVX availability, and (2) add the ‘tune?’ property for those who want a fine-tuned binary. Could you look into it? Thanks, Ludo’.
Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes: > Hi, > > raingloom <raingloom@riseup.net> skribis: > >> From: Csepp <raingloom@riseup.net> >> >> * gnu/packages/emulators.scm (vice)[properties]: Set tunable? to #t. >> --- >> gnu/packages/emulators.scm | 2 ++ >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/gnu/packages/emulators.scm b/gnu/packages/emulators.scm >> index 1d50c9ef01..0fb4a5853b 100644 >> --- a/gnu/packages/emulators.scm >> +++ b/gnu/packages/emulators.scm >> @@ -118,6 +118,8 @@ (define-public vice >> (package >> (name "vice") >> (version "3.7.1") >> + ;; without this it would use AVX even when it's not suported: > > Oh I see. It’s a problem that ‘tunable?’ in itself doesn’t solve. > > The fix would be twofold: (1) remove ‘-march’ and similar compiler > arguments that cause it to generate code that assumes AVX availability, > and (2) add the ‘tune?’ property for those who want a fine-tuned binary. > > Could you look into it? > > Thanks, > Ludo’. Umm, it definitely solved it on my machine, which doesn't have AVX. If that's not a "proper" fix, then sure, I can try looking into it more. But it seems to me like `tunable?` is already working as intended.
Hi, Csepp <raingloom@riseup.net> skribis: > Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes: [...] >> The fix would be twofold: (1) remove ‘-march’ and similar compiler >> arguments that cause it to generate code that assumes AVX availability, >> and (2) add the ‘tune?’ property for those who want a fine-tuned binary. >> >> Could you look into it? >> >> Thanks, >> Ludo’. > > Umm, it definitely solved it on my machine, which doesn't have AVX. > If that's not a "proper" fix, then sure, I can try looking into it more. > But it seems to me like `tunable?` is already working as intended. What I meant is that someone installing ‘vice’ without ‘--tune’ will still get a binary that assumes AVXsomething, which may or may not work on their machine. The default binary (without ‘--tune’) should target baseline x86_64. That’s why we need both fixes I mentioned above. HTH! Ludo’.
diff --git a/gnu/packages/emulators.scm b/gnu/packages/emulators.scm index 1d50c9ef01..0fb4a5853b 100644 --- a/gnu/packages/emulators.scm +++ b/gnu/packages/emulators.scm @@ -118,6 +118,8 @@ (define-public vice (package (name "vice") (version "3.7.1") + ;; without this it would use AVX even when it's not suported: + (properties '((tunable? . #t))) (source (origin (method url-fetch)
From: Csepp <raingloom@riseup.net> * gnu/packages/emulators.scm (vice)[properties]: Set tunable? to #t. --- gnu/packages/emulators.scm | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) base-commit: 07d43c66d5c11fef61f9846fefb97fa18e4764f1