Skip to content

SSE2 needed for versions >= 3.6? #559

Closed

Description

@lulol

The last version that works with non SSE2 enabled CPU AthlonXP on Windows XP SP3 is v3.5.1, which I suspect is due to newer versions compiled with the now default flags using SSE2 instructions.

Could you apply the GO386=387 flag and so that no SSE2 instructions are used and enable sqlitebrowser run on old CPUs?

Activity

  1. justinclift commented on Apr 10, 2016

    @justinclift
    Member

    Interesting question. Technically it should be possible. But it sounds like it might negatively impact lots of people by (maybe) being much slower for some operations (unsure).

    Lets ask Rene, who creates the Windows builds.

    Also note, if/when we get Windows compiling instructions fully worked out - so anyone can compile it themselves - that could also add more possibilities for people on unusual hardware. Hopefully I'll get time to look into that next week. 😄

    @rp- Thoughts?

  2. justinclift commented on Apr 10, 2016

    @justinclift
    Member

    Oh, as another thought, do the nightly builds work for you at all? They're compiled using a different approach, though I'm unsure if the compiler flags for cpu instruction set features are any different. Worth trying if you haven't yet. 😄

  3. lulol commented on Apr 10, 2016

    @lulol
    ContributorAuthor

    As you suggested have tried the windows nightly sqlitebrowser Version 3.8.99 and it works fine in a non SSE2 enabled AthlonXP.

  4. justinclift commented on Apr 10, 2016

    @justinclift
    Member

    Cool. That's a good workaround for now then. 😄

  5. lulol commented on Apr 11, 2016

    @lulol
    ContributorAuthor

    Since there is no warning at all that could give a clue to people with old CPUs potentially affected (AthlonXP, P3) that this issue is SSE2 related when running the program because it won't start or just crash inmediately, then in the mean time may worth adding a note to the README.md directing them to the nightly builds or to older releases. 😉

  6. justinclift commented on Apr 11, 2016

    @justinclift
    Member

    Good thinking. 😀

    Done: fd0eae9

  7. MKleusberg commented on Feb 13, 2020

    @MKleusberg
    Member

    Closing this because it's really old and seems to be fixed 😄

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions