Panu Matilainen wrote:
> This proposal seems mostly like an experiment in disguise to find out
> whether the Fedora developers can agree on *something*,
This also looks to me like the tactic to ask for the moon to get a
"compromise" that is still unacceptable.
> and quite clearly the answer is yes, at least this once we can all agree
> to disagree with the proposed change.
I disagree with ANY raised vector instruction requirement, considering that:
* it would make Fedora incompatible with some hardware out there,
* the performance increase to be had is marginal, given that we are mostly
talking about code written in C or C++ without even compiler vectorization
(-ftree-vectorize) turned on,
* there are already mechanisms for runtime feature detection, which are
already widely used in those few packages that can actually benefit from
the vector instructions (because they are performance-sensitive and
because they have handwritten assembly or vector intrinsics code),
* upstreams still widely support SSE2, so I don't see a burden for
maintainers to keep it going (unlike the case of pre-SSE2 32-bit x86 where
a few upstreams had dropped support).
Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
