On 2012-12-05 12:50:42 +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Janne Grunau <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> > On 2012-12-05 02:29:02 +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> >> This allows compiling optimised functions for features not enabled
> >> in the core build and selecting these at runtime if the system has
> >> the necessary support.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Mans Rullgard <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >> This version does not rely on headers missing on Android, but rather
> >> includes a copy of the (trivial) definitions.  The kernel interface is
> >> stable, so this does not pose a compatibility problem.
> >> 
> >> Also changed is the returned flags if /proc/self/auxv could not be opened.
> >> Instead of returning zero as in previous versions of the patch, the flags
> >> corresponding to the base build options are used.  Features signalled in
> >> auxv are merely added to this set with nothing being removed.  This way
> >> the base feature set is always fully utilised, even if runtime detection
> >> somehow fails.
> >> ---
> >>  configure           |  4 ++-
> >>  libavutil/arm/cpu.c | 83 
> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  2 files changed, 86 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/configure b/configure
> >> index bf6aceb..63a5d6f 100755
> >> --- a/configure
> >> +++ b/configure
> >> @@ -3175,7 +3175,9 @@ EOF
> >>      enabled vfp     && check_insn vfp     'fadds s0, s0, s0'
> >>      enabled vfpv3   && check_insn vfpv3   'vmov.f32 s0, #1.0'
> >>  
> >> -    map 'enabled_any ${v}_external ${v}_inline || disable $v' 
> >> $ARCH_EXT_LIST_ARM
> >> +    [ $target_os = linux ] ||
> >> +        map 'enabled_any ${v}_external ${v}_inline || disable $v' \
> >> +            $ARCH_EXT_LIST_ARM
> >
> > What is the intentention for the plain HAVE_CPU_EXT? Trying not to use
> > it to the point of removing it?
> 
> HAVE_FOO:          will build runtime-selectable asm using FOO
> HAVE_FOO_INLINE:   FOO allowed in inline asm
> HAVE_FOO_EXTERNAL: FOO allowed anywhere in asm, mostly used to enable
>                    armv6t2 movw/movt in functions marked armv6

That's a different meaning I had in my mind. Consider the rest of my
comments moot.

Janne
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel

Reply via email to