On 13.05.2018 05:00, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:25 PM, Thomas Ward <tew...@thomas-ward.net> wrote: >> However, killing i386 support globally could introduce issues, including >> but not limited to certain upstream softwares having to go away >> entirely, due to the interdependency or issues with how certain apps >> work (read; Wine, 32-bit support, 64-bit support being flaky, and >> Windows apps being general pains in that they work on 32bit but not >> always on 64-bit). > > If 32-bit x86 support becomes mainly a thing that's run on x86_64 > hardware as a compatibility measure for things like Wine, it would > make sense to bring the instruction set baseline to the x86_64 level. > Specifically, it would make sense to compile the 32-bit x86 packages > with SSE2 unconditionally enabled. > > This would mean dropping support for Pentium Pro and earlier or Athlon > XP and earlier, but it's pretty sad to leave all that performance on > the table in order to support the few computers still in use that have > Pentium Pro or earlier or Athlon XP or earlier. > > As upstream software assumes SSE2 as the baseline, it will be less and > less a run-time check and compiling software without SSE2 will mean > shipping it in a damaged form performance-wise.
I disagree, until you provide data how many packages fail to build, at least in the testsuites, when run without the extra x87 precision bits. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
