public inbox for libc-alpha@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Adhemerval Zanella Netto <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
To: libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] NEWS: Add entry for x86-64 ISA level build
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2022 13:44:04 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b6958f9c-9a37-684c-71c6-231049e94907@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFUsyf++3HdF-JMj9T-aqFf2ZsN7d7Jri2mKiejqD1_vDRDLfg@mail.gmail.com>



On 27/07/22 13:22, Noah Goldstein via Libc-alpha wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 12:12 AM Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2022, Noah Goldstein via Libc-alpha wrote:
>>
>>> +* Support building x86-64 with multiple ISA levels has been added.
>>> +  Higher ISA levels will use better optimized functions in the dynamic
>>> +  loader and non-multiarch build as well as reduce the size of libc.so.
>>
>> I don't think "with multiple ISA levels" is very meaningful to users.
>> How is "with multiple ISA levels" different from the multi-arch feature
>> that's been present for many years - I think it could easily be read as a
>> description of that longstanding existing feature?  You need a description
>> that makes clear to users who aren't following glibc development what the
>> actual new feature is (i.e. that if you build with a compiler that
>> defaults to a newer ISA level such as -march=x86-64-v2, the resulting libc
>> will use corresponding optimized implementations and omit the versions
>> only relevant on older processors, if I'm understanding the feature
>> correctly).
> 
> That's fair.
> 
> Not really sure this needs a NEWS entry at the end of the day. It's not really
> directly visible. The only meaningful change is that there won't be any
> legacy sse code so potentially (with great care) a user could entirely
> omit `vzeroupper`.
> 
> Adhemerval do you think this needs an entry or is it too behind the scenes?

I had the impression that reorganization would allow an user visible
optimization (due the code ifunc selection change), but in the end
I agree that is should be transparent to users.  I don't have a strong
opinion here, maybe it is would be better to omit.

      reply	other threads:[~2022-07-27 16:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-07-27  6:58 [PATCH v1] " Noah Goldstein
2022-07-27 11:18 ` Adhemerval Zanella Netto
2022-07-27 12:10   ` Noah Goldstein
2022-07-27 12:10 ` [PATCH v2] " Noah Goldstein
2022-07-27 13:48   ` Adhemerval Zanella Netto
2022-07-27 16:11   ` Joseph Myers
2022-07-27 16:22     ` Noah Goldstein
2022-07-27 16:44       ` Adhemerval Zanella Netto [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=b6958f9c-9a37-684c-71c6-231049e94907@linaro.org \
    --to=adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org \
    --cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).