[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: hwcap supporting architectures?

On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 01:20:56PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:

 > >  > > > Ugh... that pushes the burden of maitaining support for new
 > >  > > > architectures to the package.
 > >  > 
 > >  > Yeah - I think it's trade off - whether we support library
 > >  > optimization package or we don't get a bit performance
 > >  > improvement.
 > > 
 > >  So, you are trading maintainance cost for a rather subjective
 > >  speed improvent?  Or should I say, preventing some performance
 > >  degradation?
 > The reason why I don't try to clear hwcap issue in documentation is:
 > I don't want to battle to someone about this kind of issue.  Buying
 > new hardware improves performance.  I don't reply any more.

 Whatever.  If you just don't want to discuss the "nice" feature, I
 won't force you into the discussion.

 "Buy new hardware" is a argument _against_ your general statement, so I
 have no idea where you want to go with that.

 I _do_ need to point out that /etc/ld.so.nohwcap is not documented
 anywhere where the user can find about it:

 $ zgrep nohwcap /usr/share/doc/libc6/*
 /usr/share/doc/libc6/changelog.Debian.gz:       /etc/ld.so.nohwcap is 0.

 But I guess that just being consistent with upstream's tradition.
 Trying to find documentation about LD_DEBUG (for example) is
 frustrating at best.  ld.so(8) doesn't even mention the variable!
 Either you *bump* into LD_DEBUG=help by chance or go RTFS, which is,
 quite appropriately, also badly documented.

 But it's fine, don't bother to reply, you certainly have better things
 to do than justify backward designs and weird decisions which are
 probably not yours to begin with.


Reply to: