On Wed, 8 Aug 2012, M�ns Rullg�rd wrote:
> Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> libavcodec/x86/Makefile | 6 +++---
>> libavcodec/x86/{dsputil_yasm.asm => dsputil.asm} | 0
>> .../x86/{dsputilenc_yasm.asm => dsputilenc.asm} | 0
>> libavcodec/x86/{vc1dsp_yasm.asm => vc1dsp.asm} | 0
>> 4 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> rename libavcodec/x86/{dsputil_yasm.asm => dsputil.asm} (100%)
>> rename libavcodec/x86/{dsputilenc_yasm.asm => dsputilenc.asm} (100%)
>> rename libavcodec/x86/{vc1dsp_yasm.asm => vc1dsp.asm} (100%)
>
> Makes sense. _yasm doesn't convey any information not already given by
> the .asm suffix, given that all the x86 .asm files use yasm syntax.
Same for _mmx.
Do we have a standard for what to do when we have both a dsputil.c and a
dsputil.asm, where the .o's would collide if we gave both their natural
basename?
--Loren Merritt
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
