Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On 28 August 2017 at 11:00, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 07/12/2017 03:44 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 08:44:02AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 01:20:58PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > The fact

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On 08/28/2017 04:35 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1482798 (Bug 1482798 - Illegal instruction in SHA1_Update() when used by chronyd) That's definitely a bug for F27. nss-softok is broken in similar ways on fedora-26-i686 Ralf

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On 07/12/2017 03:44 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 08:44:02AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 01:20:58PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: The fact that i686 kernels continue to work in general is basically luck. You probably will deny this, but

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On 08/28/2017 04:11 PM, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:26:03PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >> I ran into this unannounced change: >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Stop_Building_i686_Kernels >> >> If this is accepted, all x86 hardware on which Fedora can run will >>

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:26:03PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > I ran into this unannounced change: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Stop_Building_i686_Kernels > > If this is accepted, all x86 hardware on which Fedora can run will > support SSE2, and we should reflect that in the

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On 08/01/2017 03:20 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> I don't think it's worth fixing GCC because i386 support is legacy only >> anyway, so I'd suggest to leave things as they are (and even scale back >> the SSE2 use

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 07/11/2017 10:26 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> I ran into this unannounced change: >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Stop_Building_i686_Kernels >> >> If this is accepted, all x86 hardware on which Fedora

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On 07/11/2017 10:26 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > I ran into this unannounced change: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Stop_Building_i686_Kernels > > If this is accepted, all x86 hardware on which Fedora can run will > support SSE2, and we should reflect that in the i686 build flags.

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

El mar, 11-07-2017 a las 16:03 -0500, Justin Forbes escribió: > > The kernel team quit "supporting" i686 several releases ago, it is > down to community support, which is pretty much nonexistent. Sure, > people file bugs, but rarely do people point to or supply patches for > those bugs. The

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 10:24:54PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: > >>repeating something that was already mentioned on this thread, but you > >>can still run a 32b userspace on a 64b kernel. > >We'd need someone interested in making a Fedora spin for that, though > i686 userspace would be wasted

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 04:08:55PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote: > > Please do not forget about desktops (Fedora Workstation). > > Fresh install Fedora Workstation x86_64 consume 1.2Gb RAM. If we want > > web surfing on Intel compute stick with 2GB RAM the swapping occurs > > here 100%. > > It would be

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 5:28 AM, Михаил Гаврилов wrote: >> nothing swaps - i have running Fedora servers on VMware with 1 GB RAM (and >> they don't have swap at all) for a decade now and not touched 32bit systems >> in that time wether on servers nor on my personal

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On 13 July 2017 at 22:44, Reindl Harald wrote: > stop that nonsense, our main-sever hosting 600 domains, running some httpd > instances, mysqld, a named caching-resolver, dhcpd and what not is using 1.1 > GB memory, a sftp-server using mysqld for the user-database is far

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 10:40 -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > - Original Message - > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 07:47:58AM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > > To give an example outside of the kernel, the installer 'Reclaim Space' > > > > function has been broken on i686 for about 10

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

It would be good before disabling i686 kernel building at first decrease memory consumption for x86_64 at least until 500MB. +1 ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On 07/12/2017 09:23 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 12-07-17 16:33, Josh Boyer wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> On 12-07-17 15:18, Josh Boyer wrote: On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Hans de Goede

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On 07/11/2017 01:57 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > The fact that i686 kernels continue to work in general is basically luck. I'm going to clarify this point and say that it's less luck and more inertia and if nobody cares enough sometimes it just stops. Some examples from recent history: i686 builds

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 10:40:44AM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > I don't think that's fair at all. There is a whole anaconda team that > Case in point. The anaconda team fixes bugs in anaconda. There are few (no?) > outside contributors. That's fine. That's the case with a lot of open source

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 07:47:58AM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote: >> > > To give an example outside of the kernel, the installer 'Reclaim Space' >> > > function has been broken on i686 for about 10 months, and no-one

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On 07/11/2017 11:03 PM, Justin Forbes wrote: On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:26:03PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: I ran into this unannounced change:

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

- Original Message - > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 07:47:58AM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > To give an example outside of the kernel, the installer 'Reclaim Space' > > > function has been broken on i686 for about 10 months, and no-one seems > > > to be lining up to fix that one either:

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 07:47:58AM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > To give an example outside of the kernel, the installer 'Reclaim Space' > > function has been broken on i686 for about 10 months, and no-one seems > > to be lining up to fix that one either: > To be fair, no-one seems to be lining

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

- Original Message - > It's not a question of a single specific bug, though. It's a question > of having someone or a group of someones interesting in the *ongoing > requirement* for making sure i686 still works. > > To give an example outside of the kernel, the installer 'Reclaim

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Thursday, 13 July 2017 at 11:28, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Stephen John Smoogen > wrote: > > On 12 July 2017 at 16:32, Adam Williamson > > wrote: > > > >> To give an example outside of the kernel, the installer

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 12 July 2017 at 16:32, Adam Williamson wrote: > >> To give an example outside of the kernel, the installer 'Reclaim Space' >> function has been broken on i686 for about 10 months, and

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

> nothing swaps - i have running Fedora servers on VMware with 1 GB RAM (and > they don't have swap at all) for a decade now and not touched 32bit systems > in that time wether on servers nor on my personal machines Please do not forget about desktops (Fedora Workstation). Fresh install Fedora

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 01:43:53PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >>> >>> If cost is an issue, consider to drop all these ppc, arm, s370 and >>> mips targets. >>> >>> Their user base is like magnitudes smaller than the i686 user base, >>> while these target are having a significant impact (and

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 07/11/2017 10:43 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:26:03PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >>> >>> I ran into this unannounced change: >>>

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 5:11 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> On 07/12/2017 12:16 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: >> >>> I still have my N270 netbook, but I guess even more people still

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 07/12/2017 12:16 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > >> I still have my N270 netbook, but I guess even more people still have >> Z6xx-based devices. Still, they're over 7 years old at this point. > > > The

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 05:08:29PM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 11 July 2017 at 16:57, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski > > wrote: > >> On Tuesday, 11 July 2017 at 22:26, Florian

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:26:03PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >> I ran into this unannounced change: >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Stop_Building_i686_Kernels >> If this is accepted, all x86 hardware

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > I ran into this unannounced change: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Stop_Building_i686_Kernels > > If this is accepted, all x86 hardware on which Fedora can run will > support SSE2, and we should reflect

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

Very sad changes, because some of my hardware (eee pc 900, and old p4) have to be dumped. For the rest of hardware it means more lags and slowness because even on modern computers such as Intel compute stick only has 2Gb RAM, and this RAM couldn't be extended. It means Linux will more

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:49:55PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > So maybe what needs to happen is for someone to clearly > communicate that an i686 SiG needs to be formed before $date or > else i686 installation / kernel support will be dropped from > F28. https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1737 --

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

I'll bite, sort of. When bugs get reported through normal upstream channels that affect parts of the kernel that I'm involved in, they generally get fixed. That includes i686 and even 486. I flipped through several of the open i686 Fedora bugs, and they look familiar and look like issues that

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

Hi, On 12-07-17 18:34, Josh Boyer wrote: On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Hans de Goede wrote: I find this response not helpful at all, what I see happening here is: Person a: We need help Person b: Ok what can I do Person a: We need help figure it out yourself

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 13:32 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 13:44 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 08:44:02AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 01:20:58PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > > The fact that i686

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On 12 July 2017 at 16:32, Adam Williamson wrote: > To give an example outside of the kernel, the installer 'Reclaim Space' > function has been broken on i686 for about 10 months, and no-one seems > to be lining up to fix that one either: > >

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 13:44 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 08:44:02AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 01:20:58PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > The fact that i686 kernels continue to work in general is basically > > > > luck. > >

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

My own two cents in this whole thing, after reading this entire thread... Matt's right. This isn't a call to action because the release is a week away and there's critical 32-but bugs that need fixed. This isn't a call for support because there's specific bugs that need fixed. This is a call

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On 07/12/2017 12:12 PM, Matthew Smith wrote: On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: I guess if this change goes through I will be looking into how to run a 64-bit kernel and 32-bit userspace. We also still have a few laptops that are running 32-bit Fedora, but

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 14:45:29 -0400 Chuck Anderson wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:27:06AM +0200, Guido Aulisi wrote: > > I'm still using some old 32 bit physical servers with Fedora, and > > they still work well! > > So I would like to have a 32 bit kernel for some other

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: > I guess if this change goes through I > will be looking into how to run a 64-bit kernel and 32-bit userspace. We > also still have a few laptops that are running 32-bit Fedora, but they don't > have to and they will all be

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On 07/12/2017 06:09 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: I still have (some) 32 bit hardware in use and I must say that I was not aware of this zombie state. i686 kernels have been working fine for me otherwise I would have likely stepped up to fix things (or if that was too much work replace my last 32bit

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:27:06AM +0200, Guido Aulisi wrote: > I'm still using some old 32 bit physical servers with Fedora, and they > still work well! > So I would like to have a 32 bit kernel for some other releases, maybe > f28 if possible. Maybe you could keep the F26 kernel and try running

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On 07/12/2017 07:43 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: Currently i686 users are at about 1/6th of x86_64 users, by mirror checkins. I don't have an easy way of knowing how many of those i686 checkins are old releases -- I'll need to ask Smooge to make a custom report -- but I think it's fair to guess

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 02:36:22PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >that is FUD and polemic > Well, I of course have disagree. The course Fedora has taken is > obvious: Servers and containers. I don't understand this perception. Yes, servers and containers are important. But we pretty clearly

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 01:44:29PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > support. As noted in this thread, this isn't just Red Hat -- it is true > > of upstream i686 as well. No one is really interested in this. I > > guarantee you that if some non-Red Hat person showed up and said "Hey, >

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 04:24:22PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Which is yet another generic, non specific call for help. Which > unsurprisingly (given its unspecificness) did probably not get > a lot of response. > > What would be helpful is a concrete list of things people who > care about

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Wednesday, 12 July 2017 at 13:24, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 07/12/2017 11:57 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > On Wednesday, 12 July 2017 at 02:06, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > > > Considering that SSE2 was introduced by Intel in 2001 and AMD

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Wednesday, 12 July 2017 at 13:30, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 07/12/2017 12:16 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > > I still have my N270 netbook, but I guess even more people still have > > Z6xx-based devices. Still, they're over 7 years old at this point. > > The N270s are still

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 09:05 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 7:09 AM, Hans de Goede > wrote: > > > If the kernel team wants some specific help with ia32 support then > > 2 things need to happen: > > > > 1) A clear request for help needs to be send > > 2)

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 12-07-17 14:40, Matthew Miller wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 01:43:53PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >>> >>> If cost is an issue, consider to drop all these ppc, arm, s370 and >>> mips targets. >>> >>>

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > > On 12-07-17 16:33, Josh Boyer wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Hans de Goede >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> On 12-07-17 15:18, Josh Boyer wrote: On Wed,

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2015-February/208368.html > > > Which is yet another generic, non specific call for help. Which > unsurprisingly (given its unspecificness) did probably not get > a lot

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

Hi, On 12-07-17 16:33, Josh Boyer wrote: On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: Hi, On 12-07-17 15:18, Josh Boyer wrote: On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: Hi, On 11-07-17 22:57, Josh Boyer wrote: On Tue,

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On 11 July 2017 at 16:43, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:26:03PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >> I ran into this unannounced change: >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Stop_Building_i686_Kernels >> If this is accepted, all x86 hardware on

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 7:09 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > If the kernel team wants some specific help with ia32 support then > 2 things need to happen: > > 1) A clear request for help needs to be send > 2) What exactly they need help with needs to be clearly defined Has

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On 12 July 2017 at 09:09, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 11-07-17 22:57, Josh Boyer wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski >> wrote: >>> >>> On Tuesday, 11 July 2017 at 22:26, Florian Weimer wrote: I

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On 11/07/2017 23:30, Solomon Peachy wrote: On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 04:43:27PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: Currently i686 users are at about 1/6th of x86_64 users, by mirror checkins. I don't have an easy way of knowing how many of those i686 checkins are old releases It's worth pointing out

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > > On 12-07-17 15:18, Josh Boyer wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Hans de Goede >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 11-07-17 22:57, Josh Boyer wrote: On Tue, Jul 11,

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

Hi, On 12-07-17 14:40, Matthew Miller wrote: On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 01:43:53PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: If cost is an issue, consider to drop all these ppc, arm, s370 and mips targets. Their user base is like magnitudes smaller than the i686 user base, while these target are having a

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 08:17:06AM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > If we're being honest, a typical 2005-era laptop is going to yield a > > rather lousy experience with any modern Linux Desktop. (And an even > > lousier experience with modern Windows!) > > This is my old go-to-blogpost for such

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

Hi, On 12-07-17 15:18, Josh Boyer wrote: On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: Hi, On 11-07-17 22:57, Josh Boyer wrote: On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: On Tuesday, 11 July 2017 at 22:26,

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 08:44:02AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 01:20:58PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > >The fact that i686 kernels continue to work in general is basically luck. > > You probably will deny this, but in practice it has been so for many > > years,

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 11-07-17 22:57, Josh Boyer wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski >> wrote: >>> >>> On Tuesday, 11 July 2017 at 22:26, Florian Weimer wrote:

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

Hi, On 11-07-17 22:57, Josh Boyer wrote: On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: On Tuesday, 11 July 2017 at 22:26, Florian Weimer wrote: I ran into this unannounced change:

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 01:20:58PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >The fact that i686 kernels continue to work in general is basically luck. > You probably will deny this, but in practice it has been so for many > years, because the i686 has dropped out of RHAT's business interest. I don't think

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 01:43:53PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > If cost is an issue, consider to drop all these ppc, arm, s370 and > mips targets. > > Their user base is like magnitudes smaller than the i686 user base, > while these target are having a significant impact (and thus cost) > on

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On 07/12/2017 01:39 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 12.07.2017 um 13:24 schrieb Ralf Corsepius: On 07/12/2017 11:57 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: On Wednesday, 12 July 2017 at 02:06, Kevin Kofler wrote: Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: Considering that SSE2 was introduced by

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 7:24 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 07/12/2017 11:57 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, 12 July 2017 at 02:06, Kevin Kofler wrote: >>> >>> Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: Considering that SSE2 was introduced

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

- Original Message - > If you intend to kill Fedora, and furtherly emphasize the impression of > Fedora not being community driven distro :( For the distro to be community-driven, somebody needs to get behind the wheel. Nobody's done that for i686 kernels.

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

- Original Message - > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:55:25PM +0200, Michal Schorm wrote: > > He won't install it on his home desktop PC or work laptop. He rather find > > an old dusty laptop from 2005 in his shed and starts to learn there. > > If we're being honest, a typical 2005-era

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On 07/11/2017 10:43 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:26:03PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: I ran into this unannounced change: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Stop_Building_i686_Kernels If this is accepted, all x86 hardware on which Fedora can run will support SSE2,

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On 07/12/2017 12:16 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: I still have my N270 netbook, but I guess even more people still have Z6xx-based devices. Still, they're over 7 years old at this point. The N270s are still supported by Windows 10. Furthermore: Linux (thus Fedora) has always one

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On 07/12/2017 11:57 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: On Wednesday, 12 July 2017 at 02:06, Kevin Kofler wrote: Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: Considering that SSE2 was introduced by Intel in 2001 and AMD caught up with it in 2003, I'd be +1 (with my FESCo hat on) to requiring

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On 07/11/2017 10:57 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: On Tuesday, 11 July 2017 at 22:26, Florian Weimer wrote: I ran into this unannounced change:

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On 07/12/2017 12:26 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 12.07.2017 um 12:04 schrieb Christian Dersch: On 07/12/2017 02:06 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: Considering that SSE2 was introduced by Intel in 2001 and AMD caught up with it in 2003, I'd be +1 (with my

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On 12/07/17 11:16, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: On Wednesday, 12 July 2017 at 12:04, Christian Dersch wrote: Well, there is one very important CPU family which came some years later: Intel Atom. There are still many netbooks out there and the first Atom generations are 32 bit only

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 11:57 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > On Wednesday, 12 July 2017 at 02:06, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > > Considering that SSE2 was introduced by Intel in 2001 and AMD > > > caught up > > > with it in 2003, I'd be +1 (with

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Wednesday, 12 July 2017 at 12:04, Christian Dersch wrote: > On 07/12/2017 02:06 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > >> Considering that SSE2 was introduced by Intel in 2001 and AMD caught up > >> with it in 2003, I'd be +1 (with my FESCo hat on) to requiring

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On 07/12/2017 02:06 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: >> Considering that SSE2 was introduced by Intel in 2001 and AMD caught up >> with it in 2003, I'd be +1 (with my FESCo hat on) to requiring SSE2, >> regardless of whether the above change is accepted. > If you

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Wednesday, 12 July 2017 at 02:06, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > Considering that SSE2 was introduced by Intel in 2001 and AMD caught up > > with it in 2003, I'd be +1 (with my FESCo hat on) to requiring SSE2, > > regardless of whether the above change is

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

I'm still using some old 32 bit physical servers with Fedora, and they still work well! So I would like to have a 32 bit kernel for some other releases, maybe f28 if possible. Guido 2017-07-12 2:18 GMT+02:00 Solomon Peachy : > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 12:00:05AM +0200, Zdenek

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 12:00:05AM +0200, Zdenek Kabelac wrote: > The question is - why - certainly not because CPU got less powerfull that No, it's because modern desktop environments are much more heavily GPU-dependent to the point where the (very lousy) onboard GPUs on 2005-era laptops are

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

Florian Weimer wrote: > I ran into this unannounced change: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Stop_Building_i686_Kernels Since this effectively amounts to desupporting Fedora on i686 hardware, this is very much a system-wide change. Kevin Kofler

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > Considering that SSE2 was introduced by Intel in 2001 and AMD caught up > with it in 2003, I'd be +1 (with my FESCo hat on) to requiring SSE2, > regardless of whether the above change is accepted. If you require SSE2, you limit the usefulness of the i686

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Zdenek Kabelac wrote: > Dne 11.7.2017 v 23:17 Solomon Peachy napsal(a): >> >> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:55:25PM +0200, Michal Schorm wrote: >>> >>> He won't install it on his home desktop PC or work laptop. He rather find >>> an old dusty

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

Dne 11.7.2017 v 23:17 Solomon Peachy napsal(a): On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:55:25PM +0200, Michal Schorm wrote: He won't install it on his home desktop PC or work laptop. He rather find an old dusty laptop from 2005 in his shed and starts to learn there. If we're being honest, a typical

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On 11 July 2017 at 17:03, Justin Forbes wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Matthew Miller > wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:26:03PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >>> I ran into this unannounced change: >>>

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 04:43:27PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > Currently i686 users are at about 1/6th of x86_64 users, by mirror > checkins. I don't have an easy way of knowing how many of those i686 > checkins are old releases It's worth pointing out that won't tell us how many of those i686

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:55:25PM +0200, Michal Schorm wrote: > He won't install it on his home desktop PC or work laptop. He rather find > an old dusty laptop from 2005 in his shed and starts to learn there. If we're being honest, a typical 2005-era laptop is going to yield a rather lousy

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Matthew Miller > wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:26:03PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >>> I ran into this unannounced change: >>>

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Michal Schorm wrote: > Idk, but you know - example - somebody starts with Linux. > > He won't install it on his home desktop PC or work laptop. He rather find an > old dusty laptop from 2005 in his shed and starts to learn there. > > I think, a

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Tue, 2017-07-11 at 22:55 +0200, Michal Schorm wrote: > Idk, but you know - example - somebody starts with Linux. > > He won't install it on his home desktop PC or work laptop. He rather find > an old dusty laptop from 2005 in his shed and starts to learn there. > > I think, a lot of people

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On 11 July 2017 at 16:57, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski > wrote: >> On Tuesday, 11 July 2017 at 22:26, Florian Weimer wrote: >>> I ran into this unannounced change: >>> >>>

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:26:03PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >> I ran into this unannounced change: >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Stop_Building_i686_Kernels >> If this is accepted, all x86 hardware

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > On Tuesday, 11 July 2017 at 22:26, Florian Weimer wrote: >> I ran into this unannounced change: >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Stop_Building_i686_Kernels > > I noticed this is

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On 07/11/2017 10:33 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Florian Weimer said: >> I ran into this unannounced change: >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Stop_Building_i686_Kernels > > I'm assuming it's a work-in-progress proposal? For one thing, it says > it

  1   2   >