[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Opinions on packaging ATLAS (for the x86 architecture)



2009/9/25 Deji Akingunola <dakingun gmail com>:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Jonathan Underwood
> <jonathan underwood gmail com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Would it not be best to have the default package using the default
>> CFLAGS for consistency with the rest of the distribution, and the
>> subpackages being variants which override the CFLAGS?
>>
> This is a different issue altogether. Even if atlas is made to used
> the default CFLAGS, it will still attempt to build for a particular
> CPU (either for the archictetural default passed to it at build time
> or the hardware on which it is being built), that's how the package
> was designed.

Well, my point was that packages that do respect CFLAGS get built
currently with certain options, and however Atlas builds, the default
package should have comparable options. On x86, I see that is
presently -march=i686 -mtune=atom, and IIRC -march=i686 implies sse
and sse2 (not sure about sse3). Anyway, whatever it implies, I think
that should be the default for the main Atlas package too.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]