On Thu, 2021-03-04 at 21:33 +1000, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote: > On 3/3/21 10:54 am, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote: > > On 2/3/21 9:51 pm, Allan McRae wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > A new RFC has been opened here: > > > https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/rfcs/-/merge_requests/2 > > > > > > Summary: > > > Make -march=x86_64-v2 the default for our packages. This assumes the > > > following instruction sets which are essentially available on all but > > > the oldest AMD CPUs: > > > > > > CMPXCHG16B, LAHF-SAHF, POPCNT, SSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSSE3 > > > > > > Please visit the above link for discussion. > > Lets put discussion on this RFC on hold for a while. Clearly there is a > reasonable amount of objection to making x86-64-v2 the default. While > this mostly appears to be objection based on personal circumstances and > not on the basis of whether this change is good for the distro, I will > work within these limits. > > A lot of comments have suggested adding x86-64-v2 and -v3 as additional > architectures instead. I will revamp the the proposal to take that > approach. Though, to do this automated would require more work it may > be the push we need for a signing enclave to be set up. > > Allan
Thank you. Though, I find this a bit dismissive of my feedback arguing that this would very likely not have any significant effect whatsoever in performance, and that it fails to solve the ISA extensions issue we have. While there was some feedback based on personal circumstances, I provided objective argumentation about how the proposal as is is probably not a good idea and not the best path forward. Filipe Laíns
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
