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 debian-cross@l.d.o this is probably a baseline violation -- > please check this mail[1] 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. > [1]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-cross/2021/03/msg00007.html Thanks for catching this, -- Étienne Mollier <etienne.mollier@mailoo.org> Fingerprint: 8f91 b227 c7d6 f2b1 948c 8236 793c f67e 8f0d 11da Sent from /dev/pts/1, please excuse my verbosity.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature