From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (unknown [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF7AE15802E for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 00:21:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BDA4A2BC092; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 00:20:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 761BB2BC08F for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 00:20:51 +0000 (UTC) From: Sam James To: Arthur Zamarin Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: x86 FP issues (Re: [gentoo-dev] Arch Status and Future Plans) In-Reply-To: <75654daa-c5fc-45c8-a104-fae43b9ca490@gentoo.org> (Arthur Zamarin's message of "Tue, 25 Jun 2024 20:33:05 +0300") Organization: Gentoo References: <75654daa-c5fc-45c8-a104-fae43b9ca490@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 01:20:46 +0100 Message-ID: <87tthgo8pt.fsf@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 64d3a23c-7991-420a-aaec-b0c269457a2c X-Archives-Hash: 6dab5b12f0790c225dfb3440303f33f2 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Arthur Zamarin writes: > Hi all, this will be a long mail, and might be confusing, I'll try to > organize it, but this is a mess, so bear with me. > [...] > ======== 32-bit arches ======== > > This includes stable arches x86, arm, ppc, sparc32, dev arches s390, and > maybe more. Those are in much worse situation, with a mess on various > fronts, some of them super hard to continue support. For example > qtwebengine is less and less likely to manage to compile on a > real-hardware, and not 32-bit chroot on 64-bit host. Arch Team want to > minimize our work on those arches, meaning mass-destable and even > mass-dekeyword, with potentially full drop of stable status. > > ======== x86 ======== > > Stable 32-bit arch. I'll be honest, I don't believe at all this should > be stable arch anymore. I propose making it dev arch, and mass-dekeyword > stuff we got because of inertia. This arch is close to HW die. (let's > not talk about i486 vs i686). I think the mfpmath=sse thing [0] makes this a bit better but I still sympathise with your point. [0] https://public-inbox.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/ce894afe6c2b324fef012da9bb9387cfde7aed03.camel@gentoo.org/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iOUEARYKAI0WIQQlpruI3Zt2TGtVQcJzhAn1IN+RkAUCZnte318UgAAAAAAuAChp c3N1ZXItZnByQG5vdGF0aW9ucy5vcGVucGdwLmZpZnRoaG9yc2VtYW4ubmV0MjVB NkJCODhERDlCNzY0QzZCNTU0MUMyNzM4NDA5RjUyMERGOTE5MA8cc2FtQGdlbnRv by5vcmcACgkQc4QJ9SDfkZB7xwEAxEmWJ1cUCJnNhKZlbuNgvw/Uzw925KpVQEUl zSdJm2wBAMLiu8otm3/lkQRJJaRzxyS/9yiRTojGk/F8O2Xk+pkF =uv9R -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--