On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 18:06:24 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > The issue with this is that $feature on amd64 is not exactly the
| > same as $feature on x86. Would a better name be ${ARCH}_FEATURES or
| > somesuch? That way there would be no confusion as to whether the
| > cpuflags_sse2 USE flag did something for x86 or for amd64 or for
| > both, since there'd be either x86_features_sse2 or
| > amd64_features_sse2 or both.
|
| it would make handling in ebuilds a bit more complicated
I'm not so sure. As I understand things based upon previous
discussions on this issue, in most cases fancy optional assembly
routines aren't compatible between x86 and amd64 and separate code is
required for them anyway.
| > It'd also make handling use masking much easier.
|
| why ? because there wouldnt be anything to mask ?
I'm pretty sure that USE_EXPAND has to be the same across all profiles,
so no, masking would still be required. I'm thinking more avoiding the
cases where amd64 users set CPU_FEATURES="blah", and the fooplayer
package only has blah code written for x86 CPUs.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
