On Feb 5, 10:29 am, Ronan Paixão wrote:
> > Hmm, do you mean SSE only, i.e. no SSE2 or higher or no SSE at all. No
> > SSE2 or high might be doable once I revamp the build system via #2999-
> > #3001 by tightly controlling CFLAGS and friends. But honestly while
> > doing #2999-#3001 is a medium
> Hmm, do you mean SSE only, i.e. no SSE2 or higher or no SSE at all. No
> SSE2 or high might be doable once I revamp the build system via #2999-
> #3001 by tightly controlling CFLAGS and friends. But honestly while
> doing #2999-#3001 is a medium priority at the moment doing a SSE only
> build o
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 8:09 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jan 31, 7:31 am, William Stein wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 6:22 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
>> > I just did extend my little script to also detect SSE2 instructions
>> > and only in $SAGE_LOCAL/lib there are 43 static libs and 143
On Jan 31, 7:31 am, William Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 6:22 PM, mabshoff wrote:
> > I just did extend my little script to also detect SSE2 instructions
> > and only in $SAGE_LOCAL/lib there are 43 static libs and 143 dynamic
> > libs which use SSE2, so in so many words "No way J
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 6:22 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jan 30, 6:01 pm, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
>> Seriously: The energy spend on an SSE only build is plainly not worth
>> it considering the number of bugs I can fix in the same time where the
>> vast majority of Sage users benefit. Once #299
On Jan 30, 6:01 pm, mabshoff wrote:
> Seriously: The energy spend on an SSE only build is plainly not worth
> it considering the number of bugs I can fix in the same time where the
> vast majority of Sage users benefit. Once #2999-#3001 is done we can
> attempt to do it.
I just did extend m
On Jan 30, 5:46 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 5:44 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
> > On Jan 30, 2:18 pm, mabshoff wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> Yep, I have been playing around with this and I don't think it will be
> >> too far into the future.
>
> > I did play around with the script I wr
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 5:44 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jan 30, 2:18 pm, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
>> Yep, I have been playing around with this and I don't think it will be
>> too far into the future.
>
> I did play around with the script I wrote some more and the only code
> using SSE3 or high
On Jan 30, 2:18 pm, mabshoff wrote:
> Yep, I have been playing around with this and I don't think it will be
> too far into the future.
I did play around with the script I wrote some more and the only code
using SSE3 or higher is
./libatlas.so: at least 863330 sse instuctions used
found SS
On Jan 30, 11:58 am, William Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Carl Witty wrote:
>
> > We have a problem finding and maintaining machines old enough to not
> > have SSE3, etc., so that we can reliably build Sage binaries that
> > don't rely on SSE3.
>
> > Evidently, vmware lets
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Carl Witty wrote:
>
> We have a problem finding and maintaining machines old enough to not
> have SSE3, etc., so that we can reliably build Sage binaries that
> don't rely on SSE3.
>
> Evidently, vmware lets you mask CPUID results, to hide particular CPU
> featur
11 matches
Mail list logo
