On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 11:56:32PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
>...
> Thus, it'd be nice to have a way to automatically detect such cases, but I
> don't know of a anything better than testing manually. Which is extra unfun
> as any pre-sse2 (or pre-sse3) machine is crummy to the extreme, making
>
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 05:31:08PM -0400, A. Maitland Bottoms wrote:
> Let me just mention in this thread the volk package. Vector Optimized
> Library of Kernels implements a high level set of DSP operations, with
> fast implementations chosen at runtime depending on available CPU SIMD
> instructi
Let me just mention in this thread the volk package. Vector Optimized Library
of Kernels implements a high level set of DSP operations, with fast
implementations chosen at runtime depending on available CPU SIMD instructions.
There is always a generic fallback implementation that runs on any CPU
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 4:47 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 10:28:36PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
>> It's easy to quite reliably detect the presence of such instructions
>> (probably no one JITs such code). There's no real way to check if it's
>> executed unconditionally, thou
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 04:47:26AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 10:28:36PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > It's easy to quite reliably detect the presence of such instructions
> > (probably no one JITs such code). There's no real way to check if it's
> > executed unconditi
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 10:28:36PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> It's easy to quite reliably detect the presence of such instructions
> (probably no one JITs such code). There's no real way to check if it's
> executed unconditionally, though -- a lot of software has optimized code
> paths that are
On 08/07/2017 12:15 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Packages that genuinely cannot work on the architecture baseline are
> very rare, these are a tiny part of the packages that are not binary-any.
In general I agree with you that we should not allow too much
fragmentation. I suppose at the point where we
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 07:53:02PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
>...
> Dropping baseline support is giving up, but let's at least surrender nicely.
>
> Thus, here's a proposed solution: in unstable, there's now a bunch of
> packages that do such checking in preinst, and thus refuse (overridably) to
On Sun, 2017-08-06 at 17:27 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 09:16:48AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > What is the expected interaction with the hwcaps based library
> > installed paths? (/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/i686/{sse2,cmov}).
> > Presumably
> > libraries would still be exp
On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 09:16:48AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> What is the expected interaction with the hwcaps based library
> installed paths? (/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/i686/{sse2,cmov}). Presumably
> libraries would still be expected to use those as appropriate?
hwcaps implies runtime detection
On Sun, 2017-08-06 at 01:13 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
>
> As for a foreign machine:
> * ISA_IGNORE=y apt install »package«
How about:
ASSUME_ISAS=sse2 apt install »package«
i.e. with the ability to specify the set you expect/know that the
target machine will have. It could support "all" as
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 11:50:42PM +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 07:53:02PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
>
> > Thus, here's a proposed solution: in unstable, there's now a bunch of
> > packages that do such checking in preinst, and thus refuse (overridably) to
> > even instal
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 07:53:02PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> Thus, here's a proposed solution: in unstable, there's now a bunch of
> packages that do such checking in preinst, and thus refuse (overridably) to
> even install such software.
[...]
A big issue here is that install-time is differe
On 08/05/2017 10:04 PM, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 08/05/2017 07:53 PM, Adam Borowski wrote:
>> Thus, here's a proposed solution: in unstable, there's now a bunch of
>> packages that do such checking in preinst, and thus refuse (overridably) to
>> even install such software.
>>
>> Currently this incl
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 10:04:28PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 08/05/2017 07:53 PM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > Thus, here's a proposed solution: in unstable, there's now a bunch of
> > packages that do such checking in preinst, and thus refuse (overridably) to
> > even install such software.
> >
On 08/05/2017 07:53 PM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> Thus, here's a proposed solution: in unstable, there's now a bunch of
> packages that do such checking in preinst, and thus refuse (overridably) to
> even install such software.
>
> Currently this includes:
> * sse2: i386 (inc. hurd-i386, kfreebsd-i38
16 matches
Mail list logo
