On 16/09/16 03:57 PM, Daniel Micay wrote: > On Fri, 2016-09-16 at 21:44 +0200, Bart?omiej Piotrowski wrote: >> Actually, why don't raise the bar higher? SSE2 has been introduced in >> 2001 ? that's 15 years to upgrade one's hardware and given my sad >> experiences with computers, I find it hard to believe anyone has that >> old PC that happens to run Arch. >> >> We used to advertise ourselves as optimized for modern processors. Our >> "i786" really should include SSE3. For the same reason I would not >> complain about requiring SSE4 instructions for amd64. >> >>> I also wish we had some data on SSE2 support across i686 machines. >>> Perhaps >>> we should upgrade pkgstats to record *all* the cpuflags? We would >>> gain data >>> for future decisions, too. >> pkgstats seems to have lots of old data. It would be beneficial to >> start >> the statistics from scratch and include kernel modules as well to see >> if >> our config isn't overloaded. >> >> Bart?omiej > I think it does include kernel modules. It's why it doesn't work > properly with linux-grsec since it can't obtain that without root and > then doesn't collect statistics on installs with grsecurity. It might > just not be published. What's the point of mandating SSE2 support when 95% of apps don't really benefit from it? The few people getting SIGILL from firefox and chromium will certainly mind it much more when they get it from everything. I would just make an installation hook that reads cpuinfo and warns non-SSE2 users that they are installing something too modern.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
