[arch-dev-public] Create guidelines regarding SIMD instructions/x86 extensions

Bruno Pagani bruno.n.pagani at gmail.com
Sat May 25 11:34:38 UTC 2019

Le 25/05/2019 à 13:27, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public a écrit :
> On 25/5/19 9:19 pm, Bruno Pagani via arch-dev-public wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Le 25/05/2019 à 02:17, Filipe Laíns via arch-dev-public a écrit :
>>> I would also like to explore the idea of adding an "high performance"
>>> architecture which would be able to make use of SSE{,2,3,4,4.1,4.2} and
>>> AVX, which seem to be the standard for newer processors (>=2013). This
>>> would only be available for packages that do high performance computing
>>> (ex. openblas, sdrangel, etc.). Any thoughts on this?
>> As said on IRC, they have been discussions before on having multiple
>> targets and corresponding repos, but the starting point is that we need
>> automated build before going into such a direction, and this in turn has
>> several requirements. I’ve linked to you the pad where we put our ideas
>> together regarding this.
>> In the meantime, we had the case before of whether we should package
>> e.g. $pkgname-{sse4,avx} in a case where it mattered a lot, but it
>> turned out the software in question (embree) is able to do runtime
>> detection of available ISA. Maybe some other packages are doing this
>> too, else we could discuss whether allowing such flavours as a temporary
>> measure would be acceptable for selected packages.
> glibc detects available instruction sets and uses the best for many
> functions.


> I'd be very, very, very much against providing multiple variants of a
> package in our repos.  Using asp and makepkg are is a hard solution for
> those who really need a few packages rebuilt.

I’m fine with that possibility too.

> PS - I rebuilt [core] with -march=haswell recently as a test.  Automated
> building is not an issue.  Unattended package/database signing is the
> major stumbling block.

Yes, in our discussions it boiled down to “Automated rebuilds” →
“Unattented signing” → “Reproducible builds”.

Out of curiosity, what did you rebuild of [core] lead to?


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20190525/f7f85234/attachment.sig>

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list