-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 486
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
add downlevel compiler warning #1137
Conversation
.CMake/alg_support.cmake
Outdated
@@ -182,6 +182,8 @@ if(CMAKE_SYSTEM_NAME MATCHES "Linux|Darwin") | |||
if((OQS_DIST_ARM64_V8_BUILD OR (OQS_USE_ARM_NEON_INSTRUCTIONS))) | |||
if(((CMAKE_C_COMPILER_ID STREQUAL "GNU") AND (CMAKE_C_COMPILER_VERSION VERSION_GREATER_EQUAL "9.4.0")) OR ((CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER_ID STREQUAL "GNU") AND (CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER_VERSION VERSION_GREATER_EQUAL "9.4.0")) OR ((NOT (CMAKE_C_COMPILER_ID STREQUAL "GNU")) AND (NOT (CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER_ID STREQUAL "GNU")))) | |||
cmake_dependent_option(OQS_ENABLE_KEM_kyber_512_aarch64 "" ON "OQS_ENABLE_KEM_kyber_512" OFF) | |||
else() | |||
message(WARNING " ARM optimizations not active due to backlevel compiler") |
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.
"backlevel" is a weird word to me -- not a real English word as far as I know and I'm not really sure what precisely you're trying to say. "out-of-date"? "unsupported"?
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.
Strange indeed. I meant to write what I wrote in the commit message: downlevel. Will update.
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.
More words: "out-of-date" doesn't "feel" quite right: Older compiler versions can still have value today (as evidenced by some of them still receiving support - also making the word "unsupported" quite unsuitable).
Also, my intention was merely to make people aware that their compiler environment is not fully suitable for a specific feature of liboqs
-- without making them change their build environment "just" for this feature.
Hence the word "downlevel". But it seems to be a marketing term (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/downlevel), so we could also use something else. Suggestions welcome by any native speaker (without marketing background :-)
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.
How about simply: "ARM optimizations are not fully supported on this compiler version."
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.
So done
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.
Should this be added to scripts/copy_from_upstream/.CMake/alg_support.cmake/add_enable_by_alg.fragment? If we run copy_from_upstream.py now it's likely that these changes get overwritten.
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.
Looks good to me!
This informs users if the installed compiler will not create optimized ARM code due to a compiler compatibility issue otherwise going unnoticed (as per open-quantum-safe/profiling#68).