<div>Hi,<br></div><div><br></div><div>That's a good idea, but let's wait just a touch. I suspect that we're not the only ones running into this.<br></div><div><br></div><div>The only place where we would need this is around line 18582 of <br></div><div><br></div><div>opensmalltalk-vm/platforms/unix/config/configure<br></div><div><br></div><div>aarch64)<br></div><div># Check whether --enable-fast-bitblt was given.<br></div><div>if test "${enable_fast_bitblt+set}" = set; then :<br></div><div> enableval=$enable_fast_bitblt; if test "x$enableval" = "xyes" ; then<br></div><div> bitblt_objs="BitBltPlugin.o BitBltArm64.o BitBltDispatch.o BitBltGeneric.o"<br></div><div> bitblt_flags="-DENABLE_FAST_BLT"<br></div><div> fi<br></div><div><br></div><div>fi<br></div><div><br></div><div>This seems to be the only place where we use the architecture and we have not overridden it.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Also I think we should have a bigger discussion about do we continue with 32 bit OSes and/or 32 bit builds? But I'll make that a separate email exchange.<br></div><div><br></div><div>cheers<br></div><div><br></div><div>bruce</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div class="ik_mail_quote answerContentMessage" ><div>On 2023-03-30T23:22:16.000+02:00, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com> wrote:</div><blockquote class="ws-ng-quote"><div class="ws-ng-mail-style--545619eJzz9HPyjwAABGYBgQ"><div dir="ltr"><div class="" style="font-size:small;">Hi Bruce,</div><div class="" style="font-size:small;"><br></div><div class="" style="font-size:small;"> maybe we should introduce a helper C file, wordsize.c or some such. It could be as simple as</div><div class="" style="font-size:small;"><br></div><div class="" style="font-size:small;">#include <stdio.h></div><div class="" style="font-size:small;">int main() { printf("%d\n", sizeof(void *)); return 0; }</div><div class="" style="font-size:small;"><br></div><div class="" style="font-size:small;">we would then compile that first and use its output to determine what to do next. More reliable than uname? What do you think?</div><div class="" style="font-size:small;"><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote-545619eJzz9HPyjwAABGYBgQ"><div dir="ltr" class="">On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:23 AM Bruce O'Neel <<a class="defaultMailLink" href="mailto:bruce.oneel@pckswarms.ch">bruce.oneel@pckswarms.ch</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote-545619eJzz9HPyjwAABGYBgQ" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex;"><div>Hi all,<br></div><div><br></div><div>First, this is not our problem :-). But it affects us.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I have kept a 32 bit Pi OS around even though the rest of my ARM systems are 64 bit.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Until today Squeak built fine. The last build I did was 901401c from the 28th but tonight it started failing on Pi OS 32 bit with:<br></div><div><br></div><p style="margin:0px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);"><span style="font-family:Menlo;"><span style="font-size:11px;"><span style="font-variant-ligatures:no-common-ligatures;">tmp/opensmalltalk-vm/platforms/Cross/plugins/BitBltPlugin/BitBltArm64.c:261:9: </span><span style="background-color:rgb(0,0,0);"><span style="color:rgb(255,255,255);">error</span></span><span style="font-variant-ligatures:no-common-ligatures;">: invalid 'asm': invalid operand for code 'w'</span></span></span></span><br></p><div><br></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);"><span style="font-family:Menlo;"><span style="font-size:11px;"><span style="font-variant-ligatures:no-common-ligatures;">which is bizarre. Why would it start building the BitBltArm64.c plugin? It's ARM32 (armv7l to be exact). </span></span></span></span><br></div><div><br></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);"><span style="font-family:Menlo;"><span style="font-size:11px;"><span style="font-variant-ligatures:no-common-ligatures;">And the is no way that the two commits since the last successful build could have changed this. And what do you know, that commit fails as well now.</span></span></span></span><br></div><div><br></div><div>But there is the problem. uname -m returned armv7l. Yesterday </div><div><br></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);"><span style="font-family:Menlo;"><span style="font-size:11px;"><span style="font-variant-ligatures:no-common-ligatures;">But today it does not return armv7l. Today uname -m and arch both return aarch64.</span></span></span></span><br></div><div><br></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);"><span style="font-family:Menlo;"><span style="font-size:11px;"><span style="font-variant-ligatures:no-common-ligatures;">Which is technically at some level correct. This system IS a PI/400 so therefore it is an ARM64, but with a 32 bit OS installed.</span></span></span></span><br></div><div><br></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);"><span style="font-family:Menlo;"><span style="font-size:11px;"><span style="font-variant-ligatures:no-common-ligatures;">I think the change is this package:</span></span></span></span><br></div><div><br></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);"><span style="font-family:Menlo;"><span style="font-size:11px;"><span style="font-variant-ligatures:no-common-ligatures;">libc-bin:armhf 2.31-13+rpt2+rpi1+deb11u5</span></span></span></span><br></div><div><br></div><div>We'll see if Debian or Raspberry PI fixes this in the next few days.<br></div><div><br></div><div>cheers<br></div><div><br></div><div>bruce<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div><span class="">-- </span><br><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr"><div><span style="font-size:small;border-collapse:separate;"><div>_,,,^..^,,,_<br></div><div>best, Eliot</div></span></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div>