Hi, On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Jason Garrett-Glaser <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Ronald S. Bultje <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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? > > Why don't we just make it mmx2? All mmx2 CPUs have cmov. I don't > like adding new variables for the purpose of supporting 15-20-year-old > systems.
Diego, can you produce a smaller patch / final code by marking these as mmx2? Ronald _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
