[bug#65903] [PATCH] gnu: Make vice tunable.

[bug#65903] [PATCH] gnu: Make vice tunable.

[raingloom]

From: Csepp <raingloom@riseup.net>

* gnu/packages/emulators.scm (vice)[properties]: Set tunable? to #t.
---
This fixes the issue with unsupported AVX instructions.

 gnu/packages/emulators.scm | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/gnu/packages/emulators.scm b/gnu/packages/emulators.scm
index 1d50c9ef01..dd1e3e877f 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/emulators.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/emulators.scm
@@ -118,6 +118,7 @@ (define-public vice
   (package
     (name "vice")
     (version "3.7.1")
+    (properties '((tunable? . #t)))
     (source
      (origin
        (method url-fetch)

base-commit: 07d43c66d5c11fef61f9846fefb97fa18e4764f1
-- 
2.41.0

[bug#65903] [PATCH v2] gnu: Make vice tunable.

[raingloom]

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:
+    (properties '((tunable? . #t)))
     (source
      (origin
        (method url-fetch)

base-commit: 07d43c66d5c11fef61f9846fefb97fa18e4764f1
-- 
2.41.0

[bug#65903] [PATCH v2] gnu: Make vice tunable.

[Ludovic Courtès]

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’.

[bug#65903] [PATCH v2] gnu: Make vice tunable.

[Csepp]

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.

[bug#65903] [PATCH v2] gnu: Make vice tunable.

[Ludovic Courtès]

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’.