On Sun, 2010-04-04 at 17:29 -0300, Tiago Bortoletto Vaz wrote: > Hi all, > > I've faced an issue (#557550) which is much probably caused by a CPU which > doesn't support SSE2 instructions. I'm not sure about the best way to address > this. Any suggestion will be very welcome. Actually I can see the following > workarounds: > > 1) consider that most of CPUs support this flag, so tell the reporter to > compile the package by him/herself. This is the wrong answer; we officially support CPUs dating back to 486. > 2) remove this specific flag during package building, ending with a > non-optimized software available for all users. > > 3) create a specific -sse2 (or -non-sse2) package. Both acceptable. > 4) ask the upstream to code runtime checks before using SSE2 specific > instructions (is that possible?). [...] This is the best. Also there are libraries like liboil that implement various common functions that can benefit from SIMD extensions and that automatically select the right version at run-time. Perhaps this package can use that? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part