On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 12:11:09PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote: > Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:01:23PM -0700, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > >> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Jason Garrett-Glaser <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > I dislike this; just make the function mmx2. > >> > >> I'm supporting this sentiment, at least somewhat, as in "I'd prefer to > >> not add too many hacks for prehistoric cpus". Are there mmx-only cpus > >> (possibly from Intel) that do support cmov? Or does cmov support imply > >> sse/mmx2? > > > > cmov support implies nothing of the sort. It appeared with the i686 > > architecture pioneered by the Pentium Pro, which did not even have MMX. > > And on the flip side, the original Pentium MMX did not have cmov. I > don't think we particularly care about either of those CPUs though.
So what's a suitable way forward if the original patch is deemed too ugly? Ifdeffing out all the functions with HAVE_CMOV does not sound better to me, so ideas welcome... Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
