On Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 10:53:09PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Sun, 2010-04-04 at 17:29 -0300, Tiago Bortoletto Vaz wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I've faced an issue (#557550) which is much probably caused by a CPU which > > doesn't support SSE2 instructions. I'm not sure about the best way to > > address > > this. Any suggestion will be very welcome. Actually I can see the following > > workarounds: > > > > 1) consider that most of CPUs support this flag, so tell the reporter to > > compile the package by him/herself. > > This is the wrong answer; we officially support CPUs dating back to 486. > > > 2) remove this specific flag during package building, ending with a > > non-optimized software available for all users. > > > > 3) create a specific -sse2 (or -non-sse2) package. > > Both acceptable. > > > 4) ask the upstream to code runtime checks before using SSE2 specific > > instructions (is that possible?). > [...] > > This is the best. Also there are libraries like liboil that implement > various common functions that can benefit from SIMD extensions and that > automatically select the right version at run-time. Perhaps this > package can use that?
Thanks Ben and all others who showed me I was choosing the wrong way here. I liked the idea of building an extra non-sse2 binary until the upstream (hopefully) starts using a liboil(-like) library. If things go well I'll document somewhere for future reference. Regards, -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .''`. Tiago Bortoletto Vaz GPG : 1024D/A504FECA : :' : http://tiagovaz.org XMPP : tiago at jabber.org `. `' tiago at {tiagovaz,debian}.org IRC : tiago at OFTC `- Debian GNU/Linux - The Universal OS http://www.debian.org --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
