Nice find protecting the flag checks, thanks for your help. Thanks also to Jeff for giving me access to test on a few different machines with various levels of avx2/avx512 support
On Tue, Nov 26, 2024, 17:19 Pádraig Brady <p...@draigbrady.com> wrote: > On 26/11/2024 12:19, Sam Russell wrote: > > > Now I think what you are saying is there was no SIGILL with the > adjusted cksum, > > and that issue was only with the less protected benchmarking code. > > > > Correct, the benchmarking code has zero protections, and the servers I > got SIGILL they were not setting the VPCLMULQDQ flag so cksum will catch > this and fall back > > Thanks for the confirmation. > > I've tweaked NEWS a bit and also adjusted the avx2_supported() and > avx512_supported() > functions to avoid a build failure which I think would happen on x86 with > gcc 8 for example, > by protecting the builtin_cpu_supports() calls with USE_AVX2_CRC32 and > USE_AVX512_CRC32. > I'll push in a couple of hours. > > thanks! > Pádraig > > >
