From owner-freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org Sat May 9 22:46:17 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ppc@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E585E2F7D57 for ; Sat, 9 May 2020 22:46:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [96.47.72.132]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "freefall.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49KMkK5kT1z4QNQ for ; Sat, 9 May 2020 22:46:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 9CE13F1F1; Sat, 9 May 2020 22:46:17 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: powerpc@localmail.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client CN "mx1.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 973FEF4B8 for ; Sat, 9 May 2020 22:46:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49KMkK2cN8z4QNM for ; Sat, 9 May 2020 22:46:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5503E23369 for ; Sat, 9 May 2020 22:46:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 049MkH1O040013 for ; Sat, 9 May 2020 22:46:17 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 049MkH9O040012 for powerpc@FreeBSD.org; Sat, 9 May 2020 22:46:17 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: powerpc@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 246194] math/blis: pacify portlint, add test target, optimize for power9 Date: Sat, 09 May 2020 22:46:16 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports & Packages X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s) X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: jmd@freebsd.org X-Bugzilla-Status: In Progress X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jmd@freebsd.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.32 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the PowerPC List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 May 2020 22:46:18 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D246194 --- Comment #3 from Johannes M Dieterich --- My goal for this port is to have it be an option as a BLAS solution in the ports framework, so I'm hesitant to break it for anything. We should be abl= e to work with upstream to ensure a family config is available that works ideall= y on 9 and falls back correctly. That's the point of the x86_64 family is to support all 11 amd64/intel64 x86_64. They added this on my request. I'd rather work with upstream to properly bundle the ARM and Power configs = as well (with fallback, so that's unlike the x86_64 family which does not poss= ess a fallback - but maybe should) and switch them at runtime. That way everybo= dy gets ideal performance without older generations breaking. That's equivalent to what e.g. math/openblas does. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=