Hi Nilesh, Nilesh Patra, on 2021-03-10 17:19:40 +0530: > fsm-lite seems to pass in -msse4.2 for amd64. From the conversation I > had in firstname.lastname@example.org this is probably a baseline violation -- > please check this mail If there are SSE4.2 instructions, then the program will crash with Illegal Instruction error on early versions of the AMD Athlon 64 CPU for instance. So yes, that would be a baseline violation. > Probably the best way forward is to build sse4.2 down to no vectorized > operations, like it is done in simde-based builds? > I'm not sure about this, please let me know. I think the easier first step would be to just drop the build flag. Since upstream added -msse4.2 to build flags, it is quite possible it makes a differences in terms of performances. In which case, it may be worth using a selector program checking CPU flags, like is done with SIMDe, and launch the appropriate binary depending on the support, in the present case SSE4.2 or generic x86_64. Maybe other SIMD flags would make further difference in terms of performances, but it would be interesting to have a proper benchmark to measure this. I am not too sure however that adding a selector on CPU flags would apply as a "minimal change". With the hard freeze beginning tomorrow, the package would probably need substantial autopkgtest in addition to the wrapper, to make it's way in the 20 days time frame. > In any case this is likely a case for RC bug -- thought? I'm afraid it is an RC bug, yes. > : https://lists.debian.org/debian-cross/2021/03/msg00007.html Thanks for catching this, -- Étienne Mollier <email@example.com> Fingerprint: 8f91 b227 c7d6 f2b1 948c 8236 793c f67e 8f0d 11da Sent from /dev/pts/1, please excuse my verbosity.
Description: PGP signature