On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu> wrote:
> Jeff Backus wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> Jeff Backus wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > Until (unless?) we have data indicating that this is a major drain on
> >> > community resources, I'd push back on a change that actively excludes
> >> part
> >> > of the community. Now, if we do have data indicating that supporting
> >> > non-SSE2 systems with the i686 architecture is a not-insignificant
> >> > burden on the community, then I ask that this proposal be updated to
> >> > include a solution that allows us to not push out part of the
> >> > community, e.g.
> >> Ajax's
> >> > i586 suggestion.
> >>
> >> Fwiw, Qt5 officially doesn't support non-sse2 systems either. kde-sig
> >> has had to carry patches/hacks to make it work (or at least be
> >> buildable), but I'd love to be able to not have to do that anymore.
> >>
> >>
> > Hmm.. Yes, we've had discussions within the SIG re: window managers that
> > support i586/i686, and KDE was on the list of WMs that no longer support
> > our target system. Do these patches/hacks only apply to KDE or do they
> > apply to Qt in general?
>
> I'm speaking about Qt5 here
>
>
I was afraid of that. I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to you
and the rest of the KDE-SIG for all of the effort you folks make. :)
--
Jeff Backus
jeff.backus(a)gmail.com
http://github.com/jsbackus
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 4:00 PM, Michael Cronenworth <mike(a)cchtml.com> wrote:
> On 06/04/2018 02:50 PM, Jeff Backus wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the data. 25k is still a pretty healthy number. :) I realize
>> that there are a lot of unknowns in the data, so it is difficult to draw
>> any hard conclusions, but 25k is still much larger than 0. Splitting into
>> i686 into i586 and i686 would give more insight into who still needs
>> non-SSE2... Probably hurts my argument, though. :)
>>
>>
> Jeff,
>
> If you want to do the work involved to split up the 32-bit arches please
> do it.
>
> The discussion going on here is not a democratic vote on if non-x86_64
> CPUs are supported. :)
>
>
Fair point. :)
--
Jeff Backus
jeff.backus(a)gmail.com
http://github.com/jsbackus
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu> wrote:
> Jeff Backus wrote:
>
>
> > Until (unless?) we have data indicating that this is a major drain on
> > community resources, I'd push back on a change that actively excludes
> part
> > of the community. Now, if we do have data indicating that supporting
> > non-SSE2 systems with the i686 architecture is a not-insignificant burden
> > on the community, then I ask that this proposal be updated to include a
> > solution that allows us to not push out part of the community, e.g.
> Ajax's
> > i586 suggestion.
>
> Fwiw, Qt5 officially doesn't support non-sse2 systems either. kde-sig has
> had to carry patches/hacks to make it work (or at least be buildable), but
> I'd love to be able to not have to do that anymore.
>
>
Hmm.. Yes, we've had discussions within the SIG re: window managers that
support i586/i686, and KDE was on the list of WMs that no longer support
our target system. Do these patches/hacks only apply to KDE or do they
apply to Qt in general?
jeff
--
Jeff Backus
jeff.backus(a)gmail.com
http://github.com/jsbackus
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 11:01 AM, Adam Jackson <ajax(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-06-04 at 08:59 -0500, Ian Pilcher wrote:
> > On 06/04/2018 04:28 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > It should, because -march=x86-64 implies just SSE2 and FXSR, and Xeon
> MP
> > > supports both. But the intent is what the subject says: i686 binaries
> > > are for running legacy software on x86-64 systems, and nothing more.
> >
> > So the 32-bit x86 SIG would be required to rebuild all of the userspace
> > packages to run on actual 32-bit hardware, right? (What would those be
> > called, since i686 is taken?)
>
> No. The 32-bit ABI level being targeted here is basically the Pentium
> 4, which was a 32-bit part. On a P3 or older, yes, you'd need a
> rebuild, but the P4 was 2001 so we're talking about hardware old enough
> to vote here.
>
> If we did want to allow for pre-P4 32-bit userspace, what I'd probably
> do is (mostly) change %_libdir to /usr/lib/sse2 for i686, and leave it
> as /usr/lib for a (reintroduced) i586 architecture.
>
If there is truly a pressing need to enable SSE2 for *all* i686 binaries,
I'd support this as a compromise.
jeff
--
Jeff Backus
jeff.backus(a)gmail.com
http://github.com/jsbackus