Bug#788324: Unsupported on arches besides i386 and amd64
Hi, Am Samstag, den 14.05.2016, 07:10 + schrieb Jurica Stanojkovic: > Removing assembly was discussed in previous posts here. > > Please do note that new upstream patch is using assembly just for > amd64 but not for i386 arch. > That assembly code does work on i386 to, we just need to enable i386 > to use this part of code. > > If we are using assembly on amd64, could we change upstream patch to > use it on i386 to? I’d say we should not change the upstream code without need. If you think that the package would be better without assembly, or with assembly also for i386, I suggest you discuss this with upstream. Gruß, Joachim -- Joachim “nomeata” Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org • https://people.debian.org/~nomeata XMPP: nome...@joachim-breitner.de • GPG-Key: 0xF0FBF51F https://www.joachim-breitner.de/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#788324: Unsupported on arches besides i386 and amd64
Hi, Removing assembly was discussed in previous posts here. Please do note that new upstream patch is using assembly just for amd64 but not for i386 arch. That assembly code does work on i386 to, we just need to enable i386 to use this part of code. If we are using assembly on amd64, could we change upstream patch to use it on i386 to? Thanks! Regards, Jurica
Bug#788324: Unsupported on arches besides i386 and amd64
Hi, Am Freitag, den 13.05.2016, 18:40 + schrieb Jurica Stanojkovic: > There is a solution proposed on upstream. > https://github.com/bos/criterion/commit/0673606c70ba22234b8908a8f30e8 > ea588c6d776 > > With solution proposed on upstream I was able to build package > successfully on mips, mipsel, amd64 and i386. thanks for testing. > However this solution is using assembly code on amd64 and not for > i386 and other archs. > > If you think that we could remove assembly code completely, > I am sending a patch that use proposed solution but does not include > assembly code. Why do you want to remove the (presumably faster) code on amd64? I don’t see a reason to diverge from upstream here. We should simply upgrade the package to 1.1.1.0 to get the fix. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim “nomeata” Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org • https://people.debian.org/~nomeata XMPP: nome...@joachim-breitner.de • GPG-Key: 0xF0FBF51F https://www.joachim-breitner.de/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#788324: Unsupported on arches besides i386 and amd64
remove it there. Remove the assembly code, or remove the package? It wasn't clear to me whether the bit that reads an Intel performance counter is central to the whole point of the package, or just a feature that some users might find useful. If you modified that function to return 0 on non-Intel architectures, would the package then be useless on those other architectures? Also, I'm curious to know how useful this feature is on a multi-core Intel system. Does the package arrange for processes to remain on a single core? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Stamp_Counter says: With the advent of multi-core/hyper-threaded CPUs, systems with multiple CPUs, and hibernating operating systems, the TSC cannot be relied on to provide accurate results — unless great care is taken to correct the possible flaws: rate of tick and whether all cores (processors) have identical values in their time-keeping registers. There is no promise that the timestamp counters of multiple CPUs on a single motherboard will be synchronized. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#788324: [Pkg-haskell-maintainers] Bug#788324: Unsupported on arches besides i386 and amd64
Hi, Am Mittwoch, den 17.06.2015, 15:00 +0100 schrieb Edmund Grimley Evans: remove it there. Remove the assembly code, or remove the package? It wasn't clear to me whether the bit that reads an Intel performance counter is central to the whole point of the package, or just a feature that some users might find useful. If you modified that function to return 0 on non-Intel architectures, would the package then be useless on those other architectures? I haven’t checked yet. Also, I'm curious to know how useful this feature is on a multi-core Intel system. Does the package arrange for processes to remain on a single core? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Stamp_Counter says: With the advent of multi-core/hyper-threaded CPUs, systems with multiple CPUs, and hibernating operating systems, the TSC cannot be relied on to provide accurate results — unless great care is taken to correct the possible flaws: rate of tick and whether all cores (processors) have identical values in their time-keeping registers. There is no promise that the timestamp counters of multiple CPUs on a single motherboard will be synchronized. Good points. They should probably be raised at https://github.com/bos/criterion/issues/80 though. -- Joachim nomeata Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: F0FBF51F JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#788324: Unsupported on arches besides i386 and amd64
Source: haskell-criterion Version: 1.1.0.0-2+b3 Severity: important -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, as discussed on https://github.com/bos/criterion/issues/80#issuecomment-110450727 criterion contains assembly code, and upstream does not plan on actively supporting other architectures. We should not pretend that we do, and remove it there. Greetings, Joachim - -- System Information: Debian Release: stretch/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (101, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 4.0.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=de_DE.utf8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlV3/dUACgkQ9ijrk0dDIGybNwCeJWYDPoo4xrGqfj/nEXbdZPIp QbkAoKGysvkkY/QiIBa4ZikJ9qOHZFhH =pu5P -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
