On 8/13/26 1:00 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Hi Bastien,
On Thu, 2026-08-13 at 12:53 +0200, Bastien Roucaries wrote:
In order to ease the user/devel experience I want for isa-support to create
test for forky baseline
For now I test for armhf:
armv8-support
CPU feature checking - require ARMv8
neon-support
Not sure I understand this. You want to raise armhf to ARMv8? Why would
anyone then install a 32-bit port when they could just use the 64-bit
port in the first place?
Think older Raspberri Pi and derivatives ....
[...]
For amd64/i386 (i will like to only use psABI defintion so
sse3-support
vérification de caractéristique de CPU – besoin de SSE3
sse4.1-support
CPU feature checking - require SSE4.1
sse4.2-support
SSE4.2
x86-64-v2-support
CPU feature checking - require x86-64-v2
x86-64-v3-support
CPU feature checking - require x86-64-v3
Ok up until AMD64v2. Raising the minimum to v3 will remove support for
a multitude of systems still existing today.
I also support the HWCAPS arguments --- been there for ages.
Does the v3 ISA significantly improve security or maintainability?
(guess not: spectre* and spec_store_bypass, plus "vmescape" are all
still there...)
Isn't that something that should be done using hwcaps support?
INDEED.
Conversely, P8 sounds about a reasonable cutover. I don't believe that
any ppc-era laptops are still in service (unfortunately).
Just my .02€
--
Parkinson's Law: Work expands to fill the time alloted to it.
