On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 09:13:52PM +0700, John Naylor wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 11:11 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm tempted to propose that we move forward with this patch as-is after
>> adding a buildfarm machine that compiles with -mavx2 or -march=x86-64-v3.
>
> That means that we would be on the hook to fix it if it breaks, even
> though nothing uses it yet in a normal build. I have pending patches
> that will break, or get broken by, this, so minus-many from me until
> there is an availability story.
How will this break your patches? Is it just a matter of adding more AVX2
support, or something else?
If the requirement is that normal builds use AVX2, then I fear we will be
waiting a long time. IIUC the current proposals (building multiple
binaries or adding a configuration option that maps to compiler flags)
would still be opt-in, and I'm not sure we can mandate AVX2 support for all
x86_64 builds anytime soon.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
