On Mon, 2020-03-30 at 09:07 +1000, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
> SSE4.2 is 2008 for Intel, 2011 for AMD. Though I guess some processors
> were released without it for some time after that. AVX was released by
> both in 2011.
>
> So why is one too far and the other not?
I was
We received a Feature Request today to remove fontconfig and xorg-mkfontscale
dependencies from our font packages according to our own font packaging
guidelines [0].
I discussed with Eli on #archlinux-bugs and we think it's a no-brainer but
before creating a TODO we'd like to ask for your
[2020-03-29 16:25:48 +0100] Filipe Laíns via arch-dev-public:
> What I would for us to do is to create a x86-64-axv2, etc. that would
> complement x86-64. We would not add it as a target for all packages,
> just for the ones that make sense.
>
> For this pacman would have to support architecture
On 30/3/20 12:39 am, Filipe Laíns wrote:
> On Sun, 2020-03-29 at 23:37 +1000, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
>> On 29/3/20 11:17 pm, Filipe Laíns wrote:
>>> I would also like to note that rebuilding everything with forced
>>> support for AVX2 or whatever won't have much effect. Most
Am Sun, 29 Mar 2020 21:44:38 +1000
schrieb Allan McRae via arch-dev-public :
> We are currently supporting processors from 2003. We can be better
> than that.
>
> A
In the very early Linux days many tasks maxed out the cpu performance
and every cpus optimization was noticeable. This has
On 3/29/20 11:25 AM, Filipe Laíns via arch-dev-public wrote:
> I want to clarify what I am proposing.
>
> I would not be an entirely new architecture in the sense of i686, CPU
> extensions are not different architectures and shouldn't be treated as
> such.
>
> What I would for us to do is to
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 04:25:48PM +0100, Filipe Laíns via arch-dev-public
wrote:
> I want to clarify what I am proposing.
>
> I would not be an entirely new architecture in the sense of i686, CPU
> extensions are not different architectures and shouldn't be treated as
> such.
>
> What I would
On Sun, 2020-03-29 at 16:25 +0100, Filipe Laíns via arch-dev-public wrote:
> I would not be an entirely
*It would
> What I would for us to do is to create a x86-64-axv2, etc. that would
*would like for us
> let's me to believe (but this may be just me), I would be
*let me to
Ugh,
I want to clarify what I am proposing.
I would not be an entirely new architecture in the sense of i686, CPU
extensions are not different architectures and shouldn't be treated as
such.
What I would for us to do is to create a x86-64-axv2, etc. that would
complement x86-64. We would not add it
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 03:39:51PM +0100, Filipe Laíns via arch-dev-public
wrote:
> > To have a separate architecture would require automated builds, which
> > requires being able to sign packages automatically. And we have not
> > achieved database signing in 9 years I'm looking for a
On Sun, 2020-03-29 at 15:39 +0100, Filipe Laíns via arch-dev-public
wrote:
> I make the PKGBUILD build for 2
* I can make
Sorry, I am a little distracted today.
Filipe Laíns
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Sun, 2020-03-29 at 23:37 +1000, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
> On 29/3/20 11:17 pm, Filipe Laíns wrote:
> > I would also like to note that rebuilding everything with forced
> > support for AVX2 or whatever won't have much effect. Most packages do
> > not have workloads where it would
On 29/3/20 11:17 pm, Filipe Laíns wrote:
> I would also like to note that rebuilding everything with forced
> support for AVX2 or whatever won't have much effect. Most packages do
> not have workloads where it would make use sense to use these CPU
> extensions, and as such, GCC would not use them.
On Sun, 2020-03-29 at 20:26 +1000, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
> Remember when Arch Linux was optimized out of the box. We have the
> blazingly fast i686 port while other distros hung out in i386 land.
> Those were the days where the idea of Arch being fast started. Now it
> has
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 12:26, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public <
arch-dev-public@archlinux.org> wrote:
> Remember when Arch Linux was optimized out of the box. We have the
> blazingly fast i686 port while other distros hung out in i386 land.
> Those were the days where the idea of Arch being
On 29/3/20 8:52 pm, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
> If I see a SIGILL on my AMD Phenom II X6 1090T then Arch will have failed me.
>
>
> I believe your proposal should only be discussed as co-existing
> optimized port(s) and even then I'm not sure it's worth the trouble.
> Performance-critical
On 29/3/20 9:27 pm, Amish wrote:
> Also if I am not wrong Arch philosophy talks only about latest software
> and no where there is mention of latest hardware being a compulsion.
It used to. One of the original selling points was i686 optimization.
Then we got lazy, and stopped innovating.
A
If I see a SIGILL on my AMD Phenom II X6 1090T then Arch will have failed me.
I believe your proposal should only be discussed as co-existing
optimized port(s) and even then I'm not sure it's worth the trouble.
Performance-critical applications can and frequently are optimized for
the running
Remember when Arch Linux was optimized out of the box. We have the
blazingly fast i686 port while other distros hung out in i386 land.
Those were the days where the idea of Arch being fast started. Now it
has degraded to stuff of legend.
Now, x86_64 is old. We should continue to push forward
19 matches
Mail list logo
