On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 01:50:17PM -0700, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > > discussion thread. We currently use HAVE_SSSE3 and related macros to > indicate that we want to compile these and that our compiler tools are > good enough to know what to do with it. As a result, we currently use > HAVE_AVX around all avx code (yasm only - we don't have any avx inline > asm), HAVE_SSSE3 around some yasm and all inline asm code that uses > ssse3 instructions, and sometimes HAVE_SSE/2 around inline asm using > xmm regs. There is no HAVE_SSE4. HAVE_MMX2 is almost never used but > does exist.
Do we need HAVE_SSE4? It should be easy enough to add. > HAVE_MMX is something entirely different and is used as an > alternative form of ARCH_X86. No, HAVE_MMX is just that. True, it's abused in some places where ARCH_X86 would be better (when invoking init functions), but that is an issue that needs to be addressed at some point. > In addition to that, we're using inline asm checks to test whether to > enable HAVE_SSSE3 and HAVE_SSE2 (line 2850 of configure). > > Can we split these macros in something for yasm vs something for > inline asm? This means e.g. that we can use ssse3 if yasm (but not > inline asm) supports it, if inline asm is lacking, etc. What is your goal? Do you want to write something like #if HAVE_INLINE_SSSE3 instead of #if HAVE_SSSE3 && HAVE_INLINE_ASM ? Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
