On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 11:42:45AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote: > "Ronald S. Bultje" <[email protected]> writes: > > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ff_get_cpu_flags_x86() requires cpuid(), which is conditionally defined > >> elsewhere in the file. Surrounding the function body with ifdefs allows > >> building even when cpuid is not defined. An empty cpuflags mask is > >> returned in this case. > >> --- > >> libavutil/x86/cpu.c | 4 ++++ > >> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > What configuration does this affect?
--disable-inline-asm, see my FATE instance with that flag. > > I don't like this. I remember someone not testing his cpumask patch a > > while ago, causing all of fate to run (silently, and undetected for a > > good hour) in pure C on all x86 machines. > > That mistake had nothing to do with this patch. > > > Running in pure C should not go undetected and especially not silent. > > I prefer if this fails to compile, so we can _fix_ it instead of > > pretending to support a machine that we don't. For such machines, > > --disable-mmx or similar is good enough as a hack, right? I'm fine > > with some kind of a very loud warning also. > > There is currently only a problem if building with a compiler that > supports neither inline asm nor cpuid intrinsics. I don't know of such > a compiler. Ronald, do you still object to this patch? I believe Mans summed up that there should not be the risk you fear and it will fix a FATE instance. Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
