Bug 1404991
Summary: | Fedora - set the minimum architecture level to zEC12 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Dan Horák <dan> |
Component: | redhat-rpm-config | Assignee: | Dan Horák <dan> |
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | bugproxy, codonell, dzickus, ffesti, hannsj_uhl, jonathan, pmatilai, praiskup |
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Patch |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | s390x | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2017-02-10 09:56:33 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 467765 |
Description
Dan Horák
2016-12-15 10:23:10 UTC
This is meant for F>=26 only. Have the crit-path packages been built with these changes to prove viability? I've never built glibc with `-march=zEC12`, and while I don't expect anything to break, it might? Would be nice to smoke test this before we roll it out, but that's relatively easy for you test, just do scratch builds and post the scratch build URLs here. For glibc I'd be happy to review the test results. ------- Comment From mgrf.com 2017-01-27 09:27 EDT------- Yes zEC12 as minimum hardware is what should be planned for per today. compile with -march=zEC12 and -mtune=z13 Based on review results until short before cutoffs this might have to be adapted to -march=z13 Will post updates (In reply to Carlos O'Donell from comment #2) > Have the crit-path packages been built with these changes to prove > viability? I've never built glibc with `-march=zEC12`, and while I don't > expect anything to break, it might? Would be nice to smoke test this before > we roll it out, but that's relatively easy for you test, just do scratch > builds and post the scratch build URLs here. For glibc I'd be happy to > review the test results. Carlos, looks to me that glibc spec file is completely ignoring the system-wide compiler flags set via /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/rpmrc (and available as $RPM_OPT_FLAGS or %{optflags} variables or the %configure macro). So this change is a no-op for glibc. What we might want to change is ... running configure fragment for sysdeps/s390 checking for as... (cached) as checking version of as... 2.27, ok checking for __builtin_tbegin... yes checking for S390 vector instruction support... yes checking for S390 vector support in gcc... yes checking for S390 z196 zarch instruction support as default... no ^^^ set it to "yes" for a later glibc update (In reply to Dan Horák from comment #4) > (In reply to Carlos O'Donell from comment #2) > > Have the crit-path packages been built with these changes to prove > > viability? I've never built glibc with `-march=zEC12`, and while I don't > > expect anything to break, it might? Would be nice to smoke test this before > > we roll it out, but that's relatively easy for you test, just do scratch > > builds and post the scratch build URLs here. For glibc I'd be happy to > > review the test results. > > Carlos, looks to me that glibc spec file is completely ignoring the > system-wide compiler flags set via /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/rpmrc (and available > as $RPM_OPT_FLAGS or %{optflags} variables or the %configure macro). So this > change is a no-op for glibc. > > What we might want to change is > ... > running configure fragment for sysdeps/s390 > checking for as... (cached) as > checking version of as... 2.27, ok > checking for __builtin_tbegin... yes > checking for S390 vector instruction support... yes > checking for S390 vector support in gcc... yes > checking for S390 z196 zarch instruction support as default... no > ^^^ > set it to "yes" for a later glibc update Yes, glibc _always_ needs a manual update. We don't use optflags on purpose. If something goes wrong there we'd break the entire distribution. I've kicked off a scratch build with zEC12 support here: https://s390.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2458652 I'll see how it goes. https://s390.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2458651 is gcc7 with diff --git a/gcc.spec b/gcc.spec index 8d4e67f..83b43cc 100644 --- a/gcc.spec +++ b/gcc.spec @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ Summary: Various compilers (C, C++, Objective-C, Java, ...) Name: gcc Version: %{gcc_version} -Release: %{gcc_release}%{?dist} +Release: %{gcc_release}%{?dist}.1 # libgcc, libgfortran, libgomp, libstdc++ and crtstuff have # GCC Runtime Exception. License: GPLv3+ and GPLv3+ with exceptions and GPLv2+ with exceptions and LGPLv2+ and BSD @@ -1120,9 +1120,13 @@ CONFIGURE_OPTS="\ %if 0%{?rhel} >= 7 --with-arch=z196 --with-tune=zEC12 --enable-decimal-float \ %else +%if 0%{?fedora} >= 26 + --with-arch=zEC12 --with-tune=z13 --enable-decimal-float \ +%else --with-arch=z9-109 --with-tune=z10 --enable-decimal-float \ %endif %endif +%endif %ifarch armv7hl --with-tune=cortex-a8 --with-arch=armv7-a \ --with-float=hard --with-fpu=vfpv3-d16 --with-abi=aapcs-linux \ The glibc testing results look good. I've pushed a new Fedora Rawhide build which uses '-march=zEC12 -mtune=z13'. commit 7061f7271540b413b1ba64a9d841320efe00a025 Author: Carlos O'Donell <carlos> Date: Thu Feb 2 09:53:07 2017 -0500 glibc-2.24.90-30 - Optimize IBM z System builds for zEC12. The builds should arrive in rawhide shortly. - redhat-rpm-config has been updated with http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/redhat-rpm-config.git/commit/?id=4914809dca206e1016d45a0c8a4b8424beb4ad80 - gcc will switch to the defaults in the next build - kernel will follow asap https://s390.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2459286 is a test zEC12+ kernel gcc defaults updated with http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/gcc.git/commit/?id=4d72b19d1c73a47874f249b03eeb7eddb1b2cc5d kernel defaults updated with http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/kernel.git/commit/?id=bff70322560535e5f97309fc6cc6c76328a055bd |