Heya, Fis Trivial <ybbs.da...@hotmail.com> skribis:
>>> Instructions support seems like just another kind of runtime dependency, >>> can we reconsider this: >>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2015-01/msg00166.html >> >> What do you mean? The thread you’re referring to doesn’t discuss >> architecture-specific optimizations. >> >> Ludo’. > > It's not architecture specific. But we can treat architecture as one of > the runtime dependency, right? For example, openBlas depends on SSE > instructions set, but, optionally it can depends on AVX2. (Not a perfect > example since openblas can optimize itself at runtime, but hopefully you > can understand the idea) > > So, we can build packages in a generic way, and then provide optional > dependencies. > In this case, we treat SSE as default dependency and AVX2 as an optional > dependency, let users specify whether they want it or not. > AVX2 need not to be actual packages, it's just an abstraction. > > It's just a thought that we can abstract architecture as part of the > dependency graph. Yeah, I see what you mean. It would be nice, but it seems quite far stretched from the current design; I wouldn’t know how to do that. Ludo’.