On 7/15/21 2:04 PM, Sébastien Villemot wrote: >> Please go ahead and enabled AltiVec as I don't think it makes much sense to >> use BLAS >> on machines without any SIMD support. If any user complains about >> compatibility issues, >> please feel free to bring up the issue here again. > > I think I disagree with this idea. OpenBLAS can be pulled in by chains > of dependencies, even for users who do not even know what BLAS is. > Violating the baseline can lead to hard-to-understand crashes.
True, but all build servers we have support Altivec. > Since I think that reliability is more important than performance, I > prefer to strictly respect the baseline in the binary package. Sure. But we could also just have observed whether any people report crashes. > However note that locally recompiling OpenBLAS is a supported and > documented procedure, for those who want to take full advantage of > their hardware. > > Regarding the kernel that is currently built in the official binary, I > could do with some help to determine which one is the best. You can see > the list of kernels at this address: > https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/openblas/-/tree/master/kernel/power > Each KERNEL.* file lists a bunch of source files, many of which are > assembly files. > Currently, I use POWER4 for ppc64 and PPCG4 for powerpc, but I’m unsure > that those are the right choice. I want a kernel that respects the > baseline, but still taking advantage of all that is in the baseline. I would have to look into that with more detail. We can probably also discuss this on the #debian-ports IRC channel. Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
