Re: SIMD vs no SIMD on i686 (was: [Bug 3975] executable stack flag prevents use of libx264.so.148 with selinux in enforcing mode)

On 19 Jul 2016, at 02:12, Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt; wrote: On Ter, 2016-07-19 at 02:55 +0200, dominik(a)greysector.net wrote: > Hello, Sérgio. > > On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 at 02:35, RPM Fusion Bugzilla wrote: >> >> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3975 >> >> --- Comment #4 from Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt; 2016-07-19 >> 02:35:19 CEST --- >> (In reply to comment #3) >>> >>> I'll take a look at this. Could you try running execstack -c on >>> the installed >>> library in the meantime? >> Be my guest , in meantime I read your thread on packaging Mailing >> list about >> sse3 , I'd like understand if we need 2 builds for i686 ... one >> with sse2 other >> without it, can you give us your opinion ? > The only real concern here are applications linked against libx264, > which someone might want to run on low-end hardware, because I don't > think anyone would want to encode anything to H.264 on non-SSE2 > capable > CPU (i.e. Pentium 3 or Athlon XP and older). Considering last non- > SSE2 > CPUs went out of production about 8 years ago, I think it's fairly > safe > to assume that the impact of doing SSE2-only builds would be > negligible, > if any. From x264.spec we can read "#i686 is disabled on purpose - re-enabled with sse2 build" It is safe to say enable sse2 build is enable asm code ? if yes %ifarch i686 we can/should build with enable asm code ? and only one time isn't it ? I tried that, but kwizart didn't agree ...