From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jan 08 04:43:52 2018 Received: (at 29810) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Jan 2018 09:43:52 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40210 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eYTyC-0007aa-47 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 04:43:52 -0500 Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([185.233.100.1]:34058) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eYTy7-0007aQ-VN for 29810@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 08 Jan 2018 04:43:48 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hera.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DA06108D6; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:43:47 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at aquilenet.fr Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hera.aquilenet.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gwY2eVe2m1iw; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:43:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from ribbon (unknown [193.50.110.243]) by hera.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DA03C108C7; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 10:43:45 +0100 (CET) From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) To: Dave Love Subject: Re: [bug#29810] gnu: maths: Fix cache size detected by openblas on some References: <87r2rm29dy.fsf@albion.it.manchester.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2018 10:43:45 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87r2rm29dy.fsf@albion.it.manchester.ac.uk> (Dave Love's message of "Fri, 22 Dec 2017 13:13:29 +0000") Message-ID: <87zi5oit2m.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 29810 Cc: 29810@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) Hi Dave, Dave Love skribis: > This addresses a potential performance problem, fixed in the post-0.2.20 > source. It's intended for application to a package definition updated > to 0.2.20, which Ludo said is in the pipeline. Apologies that I don't > seem to have converged on an acceptable style for changes. > >>From 23ad3a438ef7bcd34e2354f6cbdede634f0188d4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Dave Love > Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 12:48:29 +0000 > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] gnu: maths: Fix cache size detected by openblas on s= ome > x86_64. > > * gnu/packages/patches/openblas-Add-dummy-implementation-of-cpuid_count-f= or-the-CPUI.patch, > gnu/packages/patches/openblas-Use-cpuid-4-with-subleafs-to-query-L1-cache= -size-on-.patch: > New files. > * gnu/packages/maths.scm (openblas)[source]: Use them. > * gnu/local.mk: Register them. Thanks for the patch. Given the number of dependents, we would not push it in master (info "(guix) Submitting Patches"). At the same time, since 0.2.20 is in core-updates and well on its way, do you think we should keep those patches? Perhaps in core-updates we could keep both 0.2.19 with these patches and 0.2.20 (ISTR you said there were incompatibilities between these two versions)? Would it make sense? Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.