On Wed, 2024-06-26 at 01:20 +0100, Sam James wrote: > Arthur Zamarin <arthur...@gentoo.org> writes: > > > Hi all, this will be a long mail, and might be confusing, I'll try to > > organize it, but this is a mess, so bear with me. > > [...] > > ======== 32-bit arches ======== > > > > This includes stable arches x86, arm, ppc, sparc32, dev arches s390, and > > maybe more. Those are in much worse situation, with a mess on various > > fronts, some of them super hard to continue support. For example > > qtwebengine is less and less likely to manage to compile on a > > real-hardware, and not 32-bit chroot on 64-bit host. Arch Team want to > > minimize our work on those arches, meaning mass-destable and even > > mass-dekeyword, with potentially full drop of stable status. > > > > ======== x86 ======== > > > > Stable 32-bit arch. I'll be honest, I don't believe at all this should > > be stable arch anymore. I propose making it dev arch, and mass-dekeyword > > stuff we got because of inertia. This arch is close to HW die. (let's > > not talk about i486 vs i686). > > I think the mfpmath=sse thing [0] makes this a bit better but I still > sympathise with your point.
I'd just like to point out that `-mfpmath=sse` is a two-edged sword. It generally makes results more consistent with other architectures which is good and resolves some test failures when people *aren't testing with x86*. However, it breaks stuff when people are specifically testing with x86 and accounting for i387 math (sigh). > > [0] > https://public-inbox.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/ce894afe6c2b324fef012da9bb9387cfde7aed03.ca...@gentoo.org/ -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
