On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 06:19:38PM -0700, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > 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: > >>>> --- > >>>> 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.
It is exposed through configure. > Diego, have ideas on how to fix this, Yes, why don't you convince Loren that mmxext is the more sensible name? > or can you live with changing everything to MMX2 instead? I believe mmxext is the better name and everybody except Loren seems to agree. There are very few uses of mmx2/mmxext in x86inc.asm and they are unlikely to ever conflict with future changes to this file. Besides, we only sync a few times per year. So I'm unconvinced that using mmx2 would be a net benefit. I still hope that Loren can change his mind, as I said, I volunteer to do all the work. Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
