On 4/19/23 07:46, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Jeff Law:
Rather than trying to track all the individual extensions and
combinations thereof, I would suggest focusing on RVI defined
profiles. Essentially they provide a set of mandatory features the
architecture must support (to be compliant with the profile).
Do at least some of these profiles form an ascending chain?
That's the plan as I understand it. *But* there are some chip vendors
pushing back against some aspects of the profile plan, say for example
requiring the vector extension. At least that's what I'm hearing
through the grapevine.
If it were up to me, I'd let them go their own way. If they don't see
the value in conforming to a profile, then that's a choice they can
make, but it'll restrict their ability to leverage all the work done at
the distro level.
Jeff
_______________________________________________
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
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
