Hi, On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:24 AM, Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 02:46:36PM +0200, Janne Grunau wrote: >> On 2012-08-01 01:33:47 +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote: >> > On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 12:00:58AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote: >> > > "Ronald S. Bultje" <[email protected]> writes: >> > > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > [..] >> > > > >> > > > The most important thing is missing: why? >> > > >> > > mmxext is a somewhat more official name. >> > >> > Yes, see my introductory email for the series. I had to unify in one >> > direction or the other, so I picked the one that appeared more >> > sensible, i.e. the more official names. >> >> That's all well but it is still missing from the commit message. That's >> how I uderstood Ronald comment. Please amend the commit. > > How about: > > x86: build: replace mmx2 by mmxext > > Refactoring mmx2/mmxext YASM code with cpuflags will force renames. > So switching to a consistent naming scheme beforehand in sensible.
in sensible? > The name "mmxext" is more official and widespread and also the name > of the CPU flag, as reported e.g. by the Linux kernel. Ronald _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
