On 25/5/19 9:19 pm, Bruno Pagani via arch-dev-public wrote: > Hi, > > Le 25/05/2019 à 02:17, Filipe Laíns via arch-dev-public a écrit : >> I would also like to explore the idea of adding an "high performance" >> architecture which would be able to make use of SSE{,2,3,4,4.1,4.2} and >> AVX, which seem to be the standard for newer processors (>=2013). This >> would only be available for packages that do high performance computing >> (ex. openblas, sdrangel, etc.). Any thoughts on this? > > As said on IRC, they have been discussions before on having multiple > targets and corresponding repos, but the starting point is that we need > automated build before going into such a direction, and this in turn has > several requirements. I’ve linked to you the pad where we put our ideas > together regarding this. > > In the meantime, we had the case before of whether we should package > e.g. $pkgname-{sse4,avx} in a case where it mattered a lot, but it > turned out the software in question (embree) is able to do runtime > detection of available ISA. Maybe some other packages are doing this > too, else we could discuss whether allowing such flavours as a temporary > measure would be acceptable for selected packages.
glibc detects available instruction sets and uses the best for many functions. I'd be very, very, very much against providing multiple variants of a package in our repos. Using asp and makepkg are is a hard solution for those who really need a few packages rebuilt. PS - I rebuilt [core] with -march=haswell recently as a test. Automated building is not an issue. Unattended package/database signing is the major stumbling block. Allan