Re: [Interest] good-compromise compatibility setting for -march=??? option (x86)?

2020-07-20 Thread Thiago Macieira
On Monday, 20 July 2020 22:46:36 PDT Thiago Macieira wrote: > So the common denominator of SLM and SNB is the WSM (Westmere). > > Not coincidentally, it's the default -march= for GCC and Clang on Clear > Linux, as well as what all binaries in /usr/bin and /usr/lib64 are compiled > towards. BTW, y

Re: [Interest] good-compromise compatibility setting for -march=??? option (x86)?

2020-07-20 Thread Thiago Macieira
On Monday, 20 July 2020 21:50:45 PDT Rainer Wiesenfarth wrote: > René would like to know how to set "march" when he *compiles code on* the > Celeron (N3150) that should *run on* the (probably first generation) Core > i7 mobile. Oh? I had not understood that. But I was wondering why he was asking a

Re: [Interest] good-compromise compatibility setting for -march=??? option (x86)?

2020-07-20 Thread Rainer Wiesenfarth
Addendum: According to https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/x86-Options.html, "-march=nehalem" or "-march=sandybridge" should do the trick. Both do not have RDRND instruction set support, as René already noted. Cheers, Rainer On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 6:50 AM Rainer Wiesenfarth < rainer_wiesenfa...@t

Re: [Interest] good-compromise compatibility setting for -march=??? option (x86)?

2020-07-20 Thread Rainer Wiesenfarth
Sorry for jumping into your discussion, but I think you are talking about different topics. René would like to know how to set "march" when he *compiles code on* the Celeron (N3150) that should *run on* the (probably first generation) Core i7 mobile. Thiago says that "march=native" produces code

Re: [Interest] good-compromise compatibility setting for -march=??? option (x86)?

2020-07-20 Thread Thiago Macieira
On Monday, 20 July 2020 14:56:24 PDT René J.V. Bertin wrote: > Thanks, will try though > [https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/microarchitectures/silvermont] suggests > that Silvermont has the rdrand instruction that my i7 doesn't have. It's supposed to have: $ sde64 --help | grep Silvermont -

Re: [Interest] good-compromise compatibility setting for -march=??? option (x86)?

2020-07-20 Thread René J . V . Bertin
On Saturday July 18 2020 10:20:44 Thiago Macieira wrote: >That's a Braswell-based Atom: Or rather a Celeron (whatever the exact difference is)? https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/celeron/n3150 >So -march=silvermont. Thanks, will try though [https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/microarchitectures/

Re: [Interest] wss:// on localhost

2020-07-20 Thread Jason H
I could never get wss: working on the mobile platforms, despite being able to get https working. a) you need these for SSL to work. You could generate them and set peer verify to off, but I don't know how to do it without a certificate. b) You can't (generally speaking) do ws and wss at the s

Re: [Interest] wss:// on localhost

2020-07-20 Thread Thiago Macieira
On Monday, 20 July 2020 01:57:31 PDT Alexander Carôt wrote: > The problem is that my application currently has a daily pageview of > 1000 > and a user base of more than 10.000 - most of the user are non-tech-sage so > I need the most simply solution. I don't see how that affects anything. Are you

Re: [Interest] Klocwork CWE warnings in Qt5

2020-07-20 Thread Thiago Macieira
On Monday, 20 July 2020 00:20:54 PDT Ramakanth Kesireddy wrote: > However, if we need to submit any fixes in future, can we submit as part of > Qt bug report for the findings through Klocwork? You can submit issues as bug reports, yes. Fixes shouldn't be submitted in the bug report, unless they'r

Re: [Interest] wss:// on localhost

2020-07-20 Thread Alexander Carôt
> > a) there is way to get rid of certificates on localhost despite using wss:// > > Yes, but then it's no better security than ws://. So either use insecure or > use a certificate. I see, however, I really don't care about security at this point because this is a localhost connection anyways.

Re: [Interest] Klocwork CWE warnings in Qt5

2020-07-20 Thread Ramakanth Kesireddy
Thanks for your email. We did review the klocwork warnings and found to be ignored. However, if we need to submit any fixes in future, can we submit as part of Qt bug report for the findings through Klocwork? Best Regards, Ramakanth On Mon, 20 Jul, 2020, 00:18 Thiago Macieira, wrote: > On Sund