mpir-2.6.0.p0 fails to build on Intel "Core" and Pentium4 Prescott CPUs #14172

sagetrac-tmonteil · 2013-02-24T11:55:22Z

The build of sage 5.7 stops during the build of the mpir-2.6.0.p0 package.

spkg/logs/mpir-2.6.0.p0.log is pasted at http://paste.debian.net/237529/

The problem seems related to some 32-bit architecture:

Building a 32-bit version of MPIR.
Building MPIR with the C++ interface and (also) static libraries.
** Building with "fat binary" support for 32-bit CPUs **
[...]
configure: error: ABI=32 is not among the following valid choices: standard
Error configuring MPIR (with CFLAGS unset).

The machine is running Debian wheezy, Linux 3.2.0-4-686-pae #1 SMP Debian 3.2.35-2 i686 GNU/Linux

I used the following sage variables :

SAGE_FAT_BINARY='yes'
SAGE_BINARY_BUILD='yes'
SAGE_CHECK="yes"
MAKE="make -j2"

Exporting ABI='standard' globally (see http://ask.sagemath.org/question/1713/error-installing-package-mpir-240p6) allows the mpir spkg to be built but then gap-4.5.7.p3 cannot be built since it also uses the ABI variable for which the value 'standard' does not make sense (it only accepts ABI=32 or ABI=64).

Just for completeness: The previous spkg (and of course also vanilla MPIR 2.6.0) failed in exactly the same way when configured on (or with [MPIR_CONFIGURE=]--host=)prescott-pc-linux-gnu:

...
using ABI="standard"
      CC="gcc -std=gnu99"
      CFLAGS="-O2"
      CPPFLAGS=""
      CXX="g++"
      CXXFLAGS="-O2"
      MPN_PATH="  generic"
...

The new spkg also fixes this.

New spkg: http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/leif/Sage/spkgs/mpir-2.6.0.p1.spkg

md5sum: 6e65bb989b0e5513371a35447b43b0da mpir-2.6.0.p1.spkg

Now patches acinclude.m4, configure.in, and configure.

(Changes now committed, and bug report and patches submitted upstream, too.)

mpir-2.6.0.p1 (Leif Leonhardy, February 27th 2013)

mpir-2.6.0.p0 fails to build on Intel "Core" and Pentium4 Prescott CPUs #14172: MPIR 2.6.0 (but also older versions) fails to configure on Intel
"Core" CPUs (expecting ABI to be "standard" rather than "32", which is
just one symptom). (Similar for Pentium4 Prescott.)
Add patch (core-prescott-configure.patch) fixing acinclude.m4,
configure.in, and the generated configure, rebased to the patches we
apply in advance.
Patch(es) have been submitted upstream.

Upstream: Completely fixed; Fix reported upstream

CC: @nexttime @jpflori @jhpalmieri @kcrisman

Component: build

Keywords: mpir, spkg, ABI, standard, Intel, Core, Pentium4, Prescott, sdl

Author: Leif Leonhardy

Reviewer: Thierry Monteil, Jean-Pierre Flori

Merged: sage-5.9.beta2

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/14172

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

nexttime · 2013-02-24T14:42:51Z

Changed keywords from mpir, spkg to mpir spkg ABI 32

nexttime · 2013-02-24T14:46:05Z

comment:2

Could you attach spkg/build/mpir-2.6.0.p0/src/config.log (of a failed build)?

What does spkg/build/mpir-2.6.0.p0/src/config.guess give?

nexttime · 2013-02-24T14:48:45Z

comment:3

Also /proc/cpuinfo might be interesting.

nexttime · 2013-02-24T16:41:02Z

comment:4

For reference, this is the current logic (originally for MPIR 2.4.0):

    Linux)
        # MPIR fails to build on 32-bit operating systems running on
        # 64-bit CPUs if CFLAGS happen to contain '-m32' and ABI is
        # *not* set, so we set it here if necessary:
        # (Cf. http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel/browse_thread/thread/46ccdc5dfc3485cd#)
        # Note: This code snippet could in principle be moved out of the
        #       Linux branch, but since we already set ABI for other
        #       OSs above (and print an according message), it's here.
        if [ -z "$ABI" ]; then
            echo "int main(){return 0;}" > foo.c
            # Try building and running a 64-bit executable:
            # (Building usually succeeds even on 32-bit systems, unless e.g. a 32-bit
            # CPU is explicitly selected by CFLAGS, while running does not.)
            if $CC $CFLAGS $CFLAG64 -o foo foo.c 2>/dev/null && ./foo 2>/dev/null; then
                # We can run 64-bit executables.
                # Setting ABI=64 shouldn't be necessary, but shouldn't hurt either.
                echo "Building a 64-bit version of MPIR."
                case "`uname -m`" in
                    ppc64) ABI=mode64;;
                    *)     ABI=64
                esac
            elif $CC $CFLAGS $CFLAG32 -o foo foo.c 2>/dev/null && ./foo 2>/dev/null; then
                # We're on a 32-bit OS which cannot run 64-bit executables.
                echo "Building a 32-bit version of MPIR."
                ABI=32
            else
                # It seems the compiler does not support -m32 nor -m64 (e.g.
                # GCC on Itanium rejects both); do not set ABI at all.
                echo "Your compiler does not support '$CFLAG32' nor '$CFLAG64'.  Leaving ABI unset."
            fi
            rm -f foo foo.c
        fi
        ;; # Linux

If only MPIR (2.6.0) requires ABI=standard (rather than ABI=32, or left empty/unset), one should presumably only set it for building MPIR:

$ unset ABI # (or set it to "32" on 32-bit operating systems running on a 64-bit CPU)
$ make -k # continue as far as possible
$ env ABI=standard ./sage -i spkg/standand/mpir-2.6.0.p0.spkg
$ make # build the rest

That way (not globally setting ABI=standard) shouldn't cause problems with other spkgs (such as GAP).

We'll see whether we can tweak spkg-install (or patch MPIR's configure) to not require this manual intervention, although [from a previous thread on a similar problem]

On Dec 24, 1:51 am, Bill Hart <goodwillh...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I agree with William's synopsis. You definitely have 64 bit hardware,
> but a 32 bit OS. It's not that your hardware is "old". I was just
> wrong about that. We support much older hardware than Core 2's!
>
> Note that you will get an approximately 2x speedup of much
> mathematical software if you upgrade your linux to a 64 bit linux. So
> it is worth considering.

(SCNR.)

nexttime · 2013-02-24T18:16:24Z

comment:6

The problem seems to be an upstream bug in MPIR 2.6.0, specifically on Intel Core (not Core2 or Core i7) processors, or, more precisely, shows up if config.guess yields core-* (probably only in conjunction with a 32-bit [Linux] OS, not sure right now).

nexttime · 2013-02-24T19:06:47Z

Changed keywords from mpir spkg ABI 32 to mpir spkg ABI standard Intel Core

nexttime · 2013-02-24T19:06:47Z

comment:7

It doesn't seem to matter whether the OS is 32- or 64-bit, it's just core-* that doesn't allow ABI=32 nor ABI=64.

Note that (on core-*) with ABI=standard, the generic C implementation is chosen, which is odd.

nexttime · 2013-02-24T19:06:47Z

Upstream: Reported upstream. Developers acknowledge bug.

nexttime · 2013-02-24T20:30:11Z

comment:8

Replying to @nexttime:

Also /proc/cpuinfo might be interesting.

Thierry, could you paste the output of cat /proc/cpuinfo?

Also, do you happen to have the MPIR build log from Sage 5.6 on the same machine? (It seems the actual bug had been present in MPIR 2.4.0 and probably older releases as well, so we're curious what has changed inbetween -- probably the output of MPIR's config.guess.)

sagetrac-tmonteil · 2013-02-24T21:04:31Z

comment:9

Here are the files.

/proc/cpuinfo is at http://paste.debian.net/237897/
spkg/build/mpir-2.6.0.p0/src/config.log is at http://paste.debian.net/237898/
spkg/build/mpir-2.6.0.p0/src/config.guess is at http://paste.debian.net/237899/

I will see if i can found a log for the sage 5.6 build somewhere.

Note that is is sometimes good to be able to build a 32-bits sage system on a 64-bits machine. For example, i need this when building sage for a live USB key that aims to boot on a widest range of machines.

nexttime · 2013-02-24T22:19:03Z

comment:10

Replying to @sagetrac-tmonteil:

Here are the files.

Thanks.

/proc/cpuinfo is at http://paste.debian.net/237897/

spkg/build/mpir-2.6.0.p0/src/config.log is at http://paste.debian.net/237898/

spkg/build/mpir-2.6.0.p0/src/config.guess is at http://paste.debian.net/237899/

Sorry, I meant the output of running config.guess (you uploaded the file itself), but I guess it is just core-pc-linux-gnu. (Its output would also be interesting for MPIR 2.4.0, although I doubt it'll differ.)

I will see if i can found a log for the sage 5.6 build somewhere.

If you still have the Sage 5.6 installation (but not the logs in spkg/logs/), you could try reinstalling MPIR 2.4.0 with ./sage -f -s spkg/standard/mpir-2.4.0.p6.spkg. (-s keeps the spkg build directory, where the source code (including config.guess) and config.log are located, even if no error occurred during the installation.)

Note that is is sometimes good to be able to build a 32-bits sage system on a 64-bits machine. For example, i need this when building sage for a live USB key that aims to boot on a widest range of machines.

Yes. Some also prefer 32-bit versions for virtual machines (on 64-bit machines).

The safest way to produce (32-bit) binary dists is still to create them natively, on old machines. (E.g., ECM_CONFIGURE=--disable-sse2 is currently necessary for Pentium III and some older CPUs, which I only noticed while actually building on a Pentium III ...)

sagetrac-tmonteil · 2013-02-25T14:17:39Z

comment:11

The output of running config.guess is indeed core-pc-linux-gnu (as well as on the mpir-2.4.0.p6.spkg).

Now, looking back at the logs of the sage-5.6 build, it seems that i built it on a more recent machine (though the live USB key with 32-bit OS was the same). Sorry for having missing that (i am currently oscillating between two different locations every two weeks).

Running ./sage -f -s spkg/standard/mpir-2.4.0.p6.spkg on the older machine does the same bug.

nexttime · 2013-02-27T00:22:31Z

Author: Leif Leonhardy

nexttime · 2013-02-27T00:36:49Z

comment:13

Thierry, could you give this preliminary spkg a try on your Intel Core machine?

Especially without SAGE_FAT_BINARY=yes, and ABI either unset or set to 32.

(SAGE_FAT_BINARY=yes should also work; you could of course try that as well, but the former is more important / interesting.)

And attach the resulting spkg log(s) here...

Thanks.

P.S.: If you're going to rebuild Sage or other spkgs depending on it with that, you should copy the spkg into $SAGE_ROOT/spkg/standard/. (You can use env SAGE_UPGRADING=yes make after doing so, in order to rebuild all dependent spkgs as well, although this is likely to take quite some time.)

nexttime · 2013-02-27T01:11:30Z

Replying to @nexttime:

mpir-2.6.0.p1 (Leif Leonhardy, February 26th 2013)

mpir-2.6.0.p0 fails to build on Intel "Core" and Pentium4 Prescott CPUs #14172: MPIR 2.6.0 (but also older versions) fails to configure on Intel
"Core" CPUs (expecting ABI to be "standard" rather than "32", which is
just a symptom). (Similar for Pentium4 Prescott.)
We currently only patch (the generated) configure (after another patch
to it and its source files has been applied), rather than [also]
aclocal.m4 and configure.in.

s/aclocal.m4/acinclude.m4/

nexttime · 2013-02-27T03:38:10Z

comment:15

[Note to myself:] I'll upload a slightly fixed spkg (also patching acinclude.m4 and configure.in later^TM, presumably tomorrow. (I missed some places when manually patching [just] configure, but these are minor I think^TM.)

nexttime · 2013-02-27T07:47:32Z

Diff between the .p1 and the .p0. For reference / review only.

nexttime · 2013-02-27T08:01:32Z

comment:16

Attachment: mpir-2.6.0.p0-p1.diff.gz

Replying to @nexttime:

[Note to myself:] I'll upload a slightly fixed spkg (also patching acinclude.m4 and configure.in later^TM, presumably tomorrow. (I missed some places when manually patching [just] configure, but these are minor I think^TM.)

Done. Note: New spkg also has a new name (-preliminary dropped).

nexttime · 2013-02-27T08:01:32Z

Changed upstream from Reported upstream. Developers acknowledge bug. to Completely fixed; Fix reported upstream

nexttime · 2013-02-27T08:18:57Z

Changed keywords from mpir spkg ABI standard Intel Core to mpir spkg ABI standard Intel Core Pentium4 Prescott

sagetrac-tmonteil · 2013-02-27T11:17:36Z

comment:19

Hi Leif, i am back in Montpellier and the machine is still in Paris. I will try to find a similar machine here or ask someone to bring it back this week-end.

nexttime · 2013-02-28T18:34:54Z

comment:21

Just in case you intend to support / fix the use of SAGE64 on Linux, it would be nice if you based your spkg on this one... ;-)

(And cc me if you open a ticket for that; I'll otherwise probably do so.)

sagetrac-tmonteil · 2013-02-28T22:32:41Z

Attachment: cpuinfo.gz

Attachment: 2.6.0.p0_config.log

sagetrac-tmonteil · 2013-02-28T22:33:04Z

Attachment: 2.6.0.p0_mpir-2.6.0.p0.log

Attachment: 2.6.0.p0-ABI32_config.log

sagetrac-tmonteil · 2013-02-28T22:33:12Z

Attachment: 2.6.0.p0-ABI32_mpir-2.6.0.p0.log

sagetrac-tmonteil · 2013-02-28T22:33:58Z

Attachment: 2.6.0.p1_config.log

Attachment: 2.6.0.p1_mpir-2.6.0.p1.log

sagetrac-tmonteil · 2013-02-28T22:34:13Z

Attachment: 2.6.0.p1-ABI32_config.log

sagetrac-tmonteil · 2013-02-28T22:34:28Z

Attachment: 2.6.0.p1-ABI32_mpir-2.6.0.p1.log

sagetrac-tmonteil · 2013-02-28T22:35:01Z

Attachment: 2.6.0.p1-FAT_config.log

Attachment: 2.6.0.p1-FAT_mpir-2.6.0.p1.log

sagetrac-tmonteil · 2013-02-28T22:35:15Z

Attachment: 2.6.0.p1-FAT-ABI32_config.log

sagetrac-tmonteil · 2013-02-28T22:35:40Z

Attachment: 2.6.0.p1-FAT-ABI32_mpir-2.6.0.p1.log

Attachment: config.guess.gz

sagetrac-tmonteil · 2013-02-28T22:52:39Z

comment:22

Hi Leif, i found a Core Duo at the lab, and did the tests you asked on the same 32-bit OS, and all possibilities lead to a build without error with mpir-2.6.0.p1.spkg. FAT means that i exported SAGE_FAT_BINARY='yes', ABI32 means i exported ABI='32'. I also tried exporting SAGE_CHECK='yes' (with no other options exported) and the tests went fine.

nexttime · 2013-03-02T18:59:25Z

comment:23

Replying to @sagetrac-tmonteil:

Hi Leif, i found a Core Duo at the lab, and did the tests you asked on the same 32-bit OS, and all possibilities lead to a build without error with mpir-2.6.0.p1.spkg. FAT means that i exported SAGE_FAT_BINARY='yes', ABI32 means i exported ABI='32'. I also tried exporting SAGE_CHECK='yes' (with no other options exported) and the tests went fine.

So do we have a positive review?

sagetrac-tmonteil · 2013-03-05T20:19:12Z

Reviewer: Thierry Monteil, ...

sagetrac-tmonteil · 2013-03-05T20:19:12Z

comment:24

All tests passed on Core Duo, so it is OK for me. It could be nice to have it tested on some prescott cpu as well. Also, i let someone who is used in maintaining this spkg to check whether the patch is ok on the code side and give a positive review.

nexttime · 2013-03-27T12:21:31Z

comment:25

Replying to @sagetrac-tmonteil:

All tests passed on Core Duo, so it is OK for me. It could be nice to have it tested on some prescott cpu as well. Also, i let someone who is used in maintaining this spkg to check whether the patch is ok on the code side and give a positive review.

Ping...

(Yesterday again someone reported running into this on sage-release.)

jpflori · 2013-03-27T12:38:34Z

comment:26

Looks fine and build on a my (non problematic) system.

Just a little remark, I think you should tag the commit yourself as this is automatically done by Jeroen's scripts, though I think they are smart enough to realize you did it, so no worry.

jpflori · 2013-03-27T12:38:34Z

Changed reviewer from Thierry Monteil, ... to Thierry Monteil, Jean-Pierre Flori

nexttime · 2013-03-27T13:19:10Z

comment:27

Thanks for the review.

Replying to @jpflori:

Just a little remark, I think you should tag the commit yourself as this is automatically done by Jeroen's scripts, though I think they are smart enough to realize you did it, so no worry.

I prefer tagging the changesets myself (and I'd appreciate if others did as well -- some do); doing so makes it easier to base spkgs on previous ones which haven't been merged yet (otherwise tags may even be missing).

The merger script shouldn't do anything with spkgs unless necessary, i.e., it should only perform sanity checks, and in case some of these fail, automagically modify the spkg if appropriate (which includes adding a missing revision tag).

jdemeyer · 2013-03-28T17:59:20Z

Merged: sage-5.9.beta2

sagetrac-tmonteil · 2019-08-27T19:45:19Z

Changed keywords from mpir spkg ABI standard Intel Core Pentium4 Prescott to mpir, spkg, ABI, standard, Intel, Core, Pentium4, Prescott, sdl

sagetrac-tmonteil mannequin added this to the sage-5.9 milestone Feb 24, 2013

sagetrac-tmonteil mannequin added c: build labels Feb 24, 2013

sagetrac-tmonteil mannequin assigned sagetrac-GeorgSWeber Feb 24, 2013

nexttime mannequin changed the title ~~mpir-2.6.0.p0 fails to build on 32-bit architecure~~ mpir-2.6.0.p0 fails to build on Intel "Core" CPU running 32-bit Linux Feb 24, 2013

nexttime mannequin changed the title ~~mpir-2.6.0.p0 fails to build on Intel "Core" CPU running 32-bit Linux~~ mpir-2.6.0.p0 fails to build on Intel "Core" CPUs Feb 24, 2013

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

nexttime mannequin added the s: needs review label Feb 27, 2013

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

nexttime mannequin changed the title ~~mpir-2.6.0.p0 fails to build on Intel "Core" CPUs~~ mpir-2.6.0.p0 fails to build on Intel "Core" and Pentium4 Prescott CPUs Feb 27, 2013

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

jpflori added s: positive review and removed s: needs review labels Mar 27, 2013

jdemeyer removed the s: positive review label Mar 28, 2013

jdemeyer closed this as completed Mar 28, 2013

mpir-2.6.0.p0 fails to build on Intel "Core" and Pentium4 Prescott CPUs #14172

mpir-2.6.0.p0 fails to build on Intel "Core" and Pentium4 Prescott CPUs #14172

Comments

sagetrac-tmonteil mannequin commented Feb 24, 2013

mpir-2.6.0.p1 (Leif Leonhardy, February 27th 2013)

nexttime mannequin commented Feb 24, 2013

nexttime mannequin commented Feb 24, 2013

nexttime mannequin commented Feb 24, 2013

nexttime mannequin commented Feb 24, 2013

nexttime mannequin commented Feb 24, 2013

nexttime mannequin commented Feb 24, 2013

nexttime mannequin commented Feb 24, 2013

nexttime mannequin commented Feb 24, 2013

nexttime mannequin commented Feb 24, 2013

sagetrac-tmonteil mannequin commented Feb 24, 2013

nexttime mannequin commented Feb 24, 2013

This comment has been minimized.

sagetrac-tmonteil mannequin commented Feb 25, 2013

This comment has been minimized.

nexttime mannequin commented Feb 27, 2013

nexttime mannequin commented Feb 27, 2013

nexttime mannequin commented Feb 27, 2013

mpir-2.6.0.p1 (Leif Leonhardy, February 26th 2013)

nexttime mannequin commented Feb 27, 2013

nexttime mannequin commented Feb 27, 2013

nexttime mannequin commented Feb 27, 2013

nexttime mannequin commented Feb 27, 2013

This comment has been minimized.

This comment has been minimized.

nexttime mannequin commented Feb 27, 2013

This comment has been minimized.

sagetrac-tmonteil mannequin commented Feb 27, 2013

This comment has been minimized.

nexttime mannequin commented Feb 28, 2013

sagetrac-tmonteil mannequin commented Feb 28, 2013

sagetrac-tmonteil mannequin commented Feb 28, 2013

sagetrac-tmonteil mannequin commented Feb 28, 2013

sagetrac-tmonteil mannequin commented Feb 28, 2013

sagetrac-tmonteil mannequin commented Feb 28, 2013

sagetrac-tmonteil mannequin commented Feb 28, 2013

sagetrac-tmonteil mannequin commented Feb 28, 2013

sagetrac-tmonteil mannequin commented Feb 28, 2013

sagetrac-tmonteil mannequin commented Feb 28, 2013

sagetrac-tmonteil mannequin commented Feb 28, 2013

nexttime mannequin commented Mar 2, 2013

sagetrac-tmonteil mannequin commented Mar 5, 2013

sagetrac-tmonteil mannequin commented Mar 5, 2013

nexttime mannequin commented Mar 27, 2013

jpflori commented Mar 27, 2013

jpflori commented Mar 27, 2013

nexttime mannequin commented Mar 27, 2013

jdemeyer commented Mar 28, 2013

sagetrac-tmonteil mannequin commented Aug 27, 2019