On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 3:03 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Those are all good points. To add more: > > 4. This certainly needs to be a "system wide change" with the related > additional info required for such changes. We certainly need releng > to sign off on this. > > 5. "Additional bugs", i.e. most likely build failures, but probably also > runtime failures are mentioned. Who will be on the hook to fix those? > Does failure to build block anything? Also, I have a bunch of packages where I have had to deliberately cripple upstream's attempts at using CPU architectures we do not support. The tbb package, for example, uses the -mrtm instructions on x86 platforms by default. Others have optional functionality or faster versions of some functionality if newer architectures are available. The ntl package can use any of -mpclmul, -mavx, -mfma, or -mavx2 if they are available, for example. The stated purpose is to compare performance. Is the comparison to be carried out by simply rebuilding with changed compiler flags, or do you intend to seek out examples like this and build the code with upstream support for the enabled CPU features? -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/ _______________________________________________ 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
