Hi, On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Loren Merritt <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Diego Biurrun wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 03:11:50PM -0400, Justin Ruggles wrote: >>> On 07/31/2012 06:17 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote: >>>> --- >>>> libavcodec/x86/ac3dsp.asm | 4 +- >>>> libavcodec/x86/ac3dsp_mmx.c | 4 +- >>>> libavcodec/x86/dsputil_yasm.asm | 8 ++-- >>>> libavcodec/x86/dsputilenc_mmx.c | 6 +- >>>> libavcodec/x86/dsputilenc_yasm.asm | 2 +- >>>> libavcodec/x86/h264_chromamc.asm | 14 +++--- >>>> libavcodec/x86/h264_chromamc_10bit.asm | 4 +- >>>> libavcodec/x86/h264_deblock.asm | 20 ++++---- >>>> libavcodec/x86/h264_deblock_10bit.asm | 4 +- >>>> libavcodec/x86/h264_idct.asm | 46 +++++++++-------- >>>> libavcodec/x86/h264_idct_10bit.asm | 2 +- >>>> libavcodec/x86/h264_intrapred.asm | 26 +++++----- >>>> libavcodec/x86/h264_intrapred_init.c | 40 +++++++------- >>>> libavcodec/x86/h264_weight.asm | 12 ++-- >>>> libavcodec/x86/pngdsp-init.c | 6 +- >>>> libavcodec/x86/pngdsp.asm | 2 +- >>>> libavcodec/x86/rv34dsp.asm | 6 +- >>>> libavcodec/x86/rv34dsp_init.c | 10 ++-- >>>> libavcodec/x86/rv40dsp.asm | 4 +- >>>> libavcodec/x86/rv40dsp_init.c | 30 ++++++------ >>>> libavcodec/x86/vc1dsp_mmx.c | 10 ++-- >>>> libavcodec/x86/vc1dsp_yasm.asm | 10 ++-- >>>> libavcodec/x86/vp3dsp.asm | 4 +- >>>> libavcodec/x86/vp3dsp_init.c | 16 +++--- >>>> libavcodec/x86/vp8dsp-init.c | 86 >>>> ++++++++++++++++---------------- >>>> libavcodec/x86/vp8dsp.asm | 30 ++++++------ >>>> libavutil/x86/x86inc.asm | 6 +- >>>> libavutil/x86/x86util.asm | 2 +- >>>> libswscale/x86/output.asm | 4 +- >>>> libswscale/x86/swscale.c | 8 ++-- >>>> 30 files changed, 215 insertions(+), 211 deletions(-) >>> >>> Looks ok, but probably should get other opinions on this as well. I know >>> Ronald was trying to keep x86inc.asm sychronized with x264, and trying >>> to do so after this change would likely require similar extensive >>> cpuflag modifications in x264. >> >> I volunteer to patch x264 if such a change would be accepted on their >> side. > > Rejected. I like "mmx2" better. > However, I wouldn't be opposed to dropping mmx1 entirely and using > the name "mmx" to refer to mmx2. (x264 doesn't actually support mmx1 > anyway; we use mmx2 inline asm that's actually inlined in places where > runtime cpu detection is impossible.) But that wouldn't help > synchronization if libav doesn't do so.
Right - from my PoV, keeping us in sync with x264 is more important that having a slightly more accurate cpuflag for something that's never exposed to end users in any way. Diego, have ideas on how to fix this, or can you live with changing everything to MMX2 instead? Ronald _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
