On 7/15/21 5:49 PM, Christian Zigotzky wrote:
> I disagree too because the performance of software with AltiVec support isn't
> as
> high as expected. I tested it a lot because we have AltiVec and Non-Altivec
> machines
> here. We changed to Non-AltiVec compiled software a while ago.
It depends
On 7/13/21, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> I wasn't really a fan of that change but my stance is that we should use
> AltiVec
> in packages where it makes sense as the majority of the ppc64 port users
> will
> have a machine that suppport AltiVec.
please *do not* do this.
we are designing
On 15 July 2021 at 2:04 pm, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
Le mardi 13 juillet 2021 à 21:04 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz a
écrit :
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
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
Le mardi 13 juillet 2021 à 21:04 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz a
écrit :
> On 7/13/21 1:55 PM, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
> > The wiki page that synthesizes architecture specificities indicates
> > that Altivec is included in the baseline for the ppc64 port:
> > https://wiki.debian.org/Architectu
5 matches
Mail list logo