This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFC] How to add vector math functions to Glibc


2014-10-01 0:03 GMT+04:00 Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Andrew Senkevich wrote:
>
>> 2014-09-30 20:35 GMT+04:00 Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>:
>> > On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Andrew Senkevich wrote:
>> >
>> >> diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
>> >> index 82d0896..c5c1758 100644
>> >> --- a/configure.ac
>> >> +++ b/configure.ac
>> >> @@ -903,7 +903,7 @@ LIBC_PROG_BINUTILS
>> >>  # Accept binutils 2.20 or newer.
>> >>  AC_CHECK_PROG_VER(AS, $AS, --version,
>> >>    [GNU assembler.* \([0-9]*\.[0-9.]*\)],
>> >> -  [2.1[0-9][0-9]*|2.[2-9][0-9]*|[3-9].*|[1-9][0-9]*], AS=:
>> >> critic_missing="$critic_missing as")
>> >> +  [2.1[0-9][0-9]*|2.[2-9][2-9]*|[3-9].*|[1-9][0-9]*], AS=:
>> >> critic_missing="$critic_missing as")
>> >>  AC_CHECK_PROG_VER(LD, $LD, --version,
>> >>    [GNU ld.* \([0-9][0-9]*\.[0-9.]*\)],
>> >>    [2.1[0-9][0-9]*|2.[2-9][0-9]*|[3-9].*|[1-9][0-9]*], LD=:
>> >> critic_missing="$critic_missing ld")
>> >
>> > Any change to required versions needs to include an update to install.texi
>> > (and the generated INSTALL file).  It should also be proposed in a
>> > separate thread whose subject describes what is being proposed.
>>
>> I thought it is already agreed in
>> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2014-09/msg00586.html
>> But if separate thread is required I can start it.
>
> In general, patch submissions should be minimal (subject to bisectability)
> - if pieces can sensibly be separated out, they should be, and each piece
> should be given a meaningful subject (which will be the summary line of
> the git commit message) describing what that piece does.  It's entirely
> plausible there are people concerned about a change to build requirements
> who aren't concerned about vector functions.

Is it OK to send patch with such update, containing also deletion of
configure checks about AVX2 support as well as according preprocessor
directive for hiding AVX2 codes? May be something else need to be
updated?


--
WBR,
Andrew


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]