Hi, On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 19:29:45 +0200 Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> wrote:
On 13-02-2025 17:32, Simon McVittie wrote: > - Officially keep current baseline, intentionally violate the baseline in > rustc (and maybe LLVM?) so that rustc produces working code, and > have the release team announce that the resulting baseline violations > are not to be considered RC bugsI think we're effectively going with this option, given the upload in [1] that we are aware of and didn't object to.
I've been thinking a tiny bit about what I think that "baseline" means and it seems to align with the ArchitectureSpecificsMemo wiki page [1]: "indicating the oldest or least capable CPU on which the architecture can be used". It goes on to say: "The baseline is mostly defined by the gcc-N package". How I now understand this now is that normally gcc will provide the setting for most packages to build a baseline compliant package, but that doesn't exactly mean these packages build for exactly the baseline (it can be lower). So, with the acceptance to have rustc/llvm build with SSE2/MMX, we actually raised the baseline, it was just not reflected in gcc.
Now that the forky development is open, gcc should probably do its thing to bump its baseline on i386. There was consensus in the tread ending at [2] to bump the baseline to include SSE2/MMX, and several remarks were made to make it the same as the current amd64 baseline (without objections). At this moment, I agree with the latter.
Paul [1] https://wiki.debian.org/ArchitectureSpecificsMemo#Architecture_baselines [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2025/01/msg00034.html
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature