On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 09:25:43 -0700 Chris Barker <chris.bar...@noaa.gov> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:40 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > > > On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 09:59:05 -0700 > > Chris Barker <chris.bar...@noaa.gov> wrote: > > > > > > So even is SSE2 provides little for Python itself, in the usual case, > > we'll > > > see performance hits n compiled extensions that are not compiled by > > > particularly smart people. > > > > Since the question is only for 32-bit builds, > > IS that the case: > """ > Note that my recently retired computer was 64 bit and had SSE but didn't > have SSE2 (I'm fairly sure - CPU was some budget AMD model) > """ > > granted, such machines are probably really really rare, but maybe it does > matter for 64 bit, too?
Unless I'm mistaken, SSE2 is part of the spec for x86-64 (spec which was originally devised by AMD), so I'm a bit skeptical about a SSE2-less 64-bit CPU. Do you have any reference? > > does this even matter? > > 32-bit builds on x86 generally bring you poorer performance by > > themselves, > > If a user has a 32 bit machine, they have no choice -- we could argue that > anyone for whom performance matters probably isn't running an old, cheap > machine, but still... The actual question is whether we want to introduce a significant amount of complexity and overhead for packagers and distributors, for the benefit of an extremely small users demography that will probably disappear altogether in a couple of years. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
