Hi, On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> wrote: > 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...
I guess I'm OK with the original patch, the HAVE_CMOV needs to go somewhere and if it goes in x86util.asm, the ugliness is at least in one specific place. So go ahead and commit that. Jason can you live with that? Ronald _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
