On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Gregory Szorc <g...@mozilla.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Benjamin Smedberg <benja...@smedbergs.us> > wrote: > >> I agree that we should drop support for non-SSE2. It mattered 7 years ago >> (see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=500277) but it really >> doesn't matter now. >> > > Wait - are we talking about requiring SSE or SSE2? The thread up to this > point was talking about requiring just SSE, not SSE2. I just want to make > sure we're on the same page since according to mhoye's post the non-SSE2 > population is ~25x larger than the non-SSE population...
What does requiring SSE without requiring SSE2 buy us apart from VS2015 compat? Is it enough to fully avoid x87-style non-IEEE floating point math? (SSE2 is usually cited when talking about migrating from x87 to IEEE.) It seems that requiring SSE2 is the typical discontinuity point as seen in Windows itself, Chromium, Rust, various codec optimizations, C++ compiler defaults (MSVC and, I believe, clang), etc. That is to say, I hope the outcome here is that we start requiring SSE2. On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Milan Sreckovic <msrecko...@mozilla.com> wrote: > While I agree we should drop non-SSE (and have started a conversation to drop > non-SSE2 as well :), the comparison to dropping 10.6-10.8 users is somewhat > unfair. Those users can upgrade 10.9 easier than the non-SSE users can buy a > new computer. Upgrading from Mac OS X 10.6 can be more expensive than buying a new entry-level Windows PC if what kept you on 10.6 was expensive PPC-era proprietary software (e.g. PPC-era Creative Suite for casual enough use that you don't need the latest for the features). Also, some Macs can't upgrade beyond 10.7. So the comparison is fairer than it first may seem. -- Henri Sivonen hsivo...@hsivonen.fi https://hsivonen.fi/ _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
