On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 02:31 +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: > The more I think about the issue and the more I like the complete > profiles for amd64 more than the other solutions.
I don't even *want* to think of what this would be for x86. These are what I can think of, so far, with regards to different support on different chips. x86 (everything) i586 (everything i586-compatible) i586 + mmx (pentium-mmx) i686 (everything i686-compatible) i686 + mmx (pentium2+, athlon+) i686 + mmx + sse (pentium3+, athlon-xp+) i686 + mmx + sse + sse2 (pentium4+, athlon64+, opteron+) i686 + mmx + see + sse2 + sse3 (some pentium4, some athlon64, some opteron) i686 + mmx + 3dnow (athlon+) i686 + mmx + 3dnow + sse (athlon-xp+) i686 + mmx + 3dnow + sse + sse2 (athlon64+, opteron+) i686 + mmx + 3dnow + sse + sse2 + sse3 (some athlon64, some opteron) Now, some of those aren't able to be turned on solely via -march. I'm not arguing for or against this, since I haven't bothered to read the entire thread at the moment. I just wanted to point out that we would likely end up with 12 sub-profiles for all of our profiles to accomplish this. Even if we only started this going forward, x86 has a few profiles considered "supported" by Release Engineering that would need adjustment... x86/2006.1/desktop x86/no-nptl x86/no-nptl/2.4 This means it is now 36 profiles to support, if we dropped support on all profiles except for the new ones. Without having any sort of multiple inheritance available, this is really unmanageable. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
