GOTO Masanori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 13.01.05 02:01:11: > At Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:27:28 +0100, > Falk Hueffner wrote: > > Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > IIRC, alpha does not define any hwcaps. > > > > There's a patch for this, which works fine, but wasn't committed yet: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-glibc/2004/03/msg00143.html > > > > Sensible options are ev56 and ev67; ev5 is not particularly useful, since > > it has the same instruction set as the baseline ev4, only different > > scheduling. > > -mieee is default anyway on Debian's gcc. > > Yes, we don't support it currently, but I think it should be available > after sarge. > > BTW, this patch does not enable HWCAP_IMPORTANT - so the answer of > first question from Marcelo is: alpha does not support library HWCAP > directory loading even if this patch is applied.
That's right. The reason is that the Alpha architecture doesn't have a set of capabilities, from which each CPU version picks a random few, but rather every CPU version is a proper superset of the preceding version. So I did not use the orthogonal HWCAP model at all. > If other libraries > like mesa and libssl want to use /usr/lib/ev67 and so on, we may > consider to add HWCAP_IMPORTANT. This should not be needed, since the library loader also looks in a directory corresponding to the architecture name. The only problem with this occurs when you have for example an ev56 library in lib/ev56, and a ev67 CPU. Then the loader looks in lib/ev67 and then falls back to lib. Since glibc is very carefully undocumented in this area [1], I didn't want to try to change this, but rather assumed one could add a symlink. Falk [1] _dl_important_hwcaps is a great text book example on how not to do comments, if anybody ever needs one. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
