Re: expected baseline changes for forky
Jose Luis Tallon <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.debian.devel.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 8/13/26 1:00 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > Hi Bastien, > > On Thu, 2026-08-13 at 12:53 +0200, Bastien Roucaries wrote: >> In order to ease the user/devel experience I want for isa-support to create test for forky baseline >> >> For now I test for armhf: >> >> armv8-support >> CPU feature checking - require ARMv8 >> >> neon-support > Not sure I understand this. You want to raise armhf to ARMv8? Why would > anyone then install a 32-bit port when they could just use the 64-bit > port in the first place? Think older Raspberri Pi and derivatives .... > [...] >> For amd64/i386 (i will like to only use psABI defintion so >> >> sse3-support >> vérification de caractéristique de CPU – besoin de SSE3 >> sse4.1-support >> CPU feature checking - require SSE4.1 >> sse4.2-support >> SSE4.2 >> x86-64-v2-support >> CPU feature checking - require x86-64-v2 >> x86-64-v3-support >> CPU feature checking - require x86-64-v3 Ok up until AMD64v2. Raising the minimum to v3 will remove support for a multitude of systems still existing today. I also support the HWCAPS arguments --- been there for ages. Does the v3 ISA significantly improve security or maintainability? (guess not: spectre* and spec_store_bypass, plus "vmescape" are all still there...) > Isn't that something that should be done using hwcaps support? INDEED. Conversely, P8 sounds about a reasonable cutover. I don't believe that any ppc-era laptops are still in service (unfortunately). Just my .02€ -- Parkinson's Law: Work expands to fill the time alloted to it.