On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote:
> > 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? That was a quote from this thread... I have no idea beyond that. > > > 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. > Actually, I thought you were advocating the opposite: SSE2 on 64bit -- cause 64 bit machines without SSE2 are really rare, if they exist at all. no SSE2 on 32 bit -- because anyone to whom performance really matters won't be running an old 32bit machine. Seems reasonable to me. -CHB -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception chris.bar...@noaa.gov
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig