-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.1k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Do not enable __ARM_NEON in recent compilers #5637
Do not enable __ARM_NEON in recent compilers #5637
Conversation
We can change autoconf to deal with it, but maybe the gcc version check is a better way. The autoconf change would be invasive. Signed-off-by: Claudio André <[email protected]>
That is beyond weird and makes me even more curious what would happen if you give it a |
If you don't But No SIMD:
|
So no SIMD but still AES-NI, which should be AES-CE if anything. Just weird. |
Those build-infos are indeed really weird. I wonder if those binaries pass tests, do they? And are they even ARM at all? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't mind this change, so approving.
Do we know this is unneeded specifically starting with gcc 6 (not e.g. 5 or 7)? How do we know?
Rather than add two more lines, we could write:
#if !defined(__ARM_NEON) && __GNUC__ < 6
Oh, and how do we want this to behave when __GNUC__
is not defined?
No. But there is another check < 6 in the source code: let's say it's a kind of minimal version of GCC we trust.
|
A suitable fix would be to let I'll let you guys merge this (or change the way |
I'm creating a Christmas release of the test packages (only); I need this branch. So, closing. The patch itself remains saved in d287408. |
This was (bad) news to me. Now that I check, we recently got this in #elif defined(__GNUC__)
# if __GNUC__ < 6
# error "Minimum version of GCC for MBEDTLS_AESCE_C is 6.0."
I wonder what actually happens when we try to build for ARM with older gcc. Maybe we need to make changes to disable AES-CE on older gcc, but let them build proceed. |
We can change autoconf to deal with it, but maybe the gcc version check is a better way. The autoconf change would be invasive.
Closes #5631.
It works fine (but the result is really odd):