On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 12:18 PM Andres Salomon <dilin...@queued.net> wrote: > So my proposal for chromium is this: > a) Enable NEON for chromium's armhf build. > b) Add a check in debian/rules for 'neon' in /proc/cpuinfo's Features: line, > and fail to build if NEON is not present. This should ensure that any buildds > or downstream builders don't waste resources configuring/building chromium on > a non-NEON board only to have it fail somewhere in the middle. > c) Using the current shell script wrapper for chromium (which already checks > for things like SSE3 cpu instructions on x86), check for NEON support at > startup by also looking for the string 'neon' in /proc/cpuinfo; if NEON is > not supported, print an error message and exit before launching the chromium > binary. > d) Ask the buildd admins to restrict building of chromium from any Armada XP > buildds, which appear to be the only armhf buildds left in rotation that lack > NEON support. If they are unwilling/unable to do this, then I'll have to play > the giveback game for armhf (step right up! everyone's a winner!), which I > often end up having to do currently because the 2-3 day armhf builds will > sometimes hang/crash halfway through.
This seems like a very good idea to me. I doubt anyone running chromium on an armhf at this point would try to do so on anything that doesn't support NEON. As a user (and developer targeting armhf) this seems like a win for users, IMVHO. paultag -- :wq
