On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 05:18:21PM +0100, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 12/9/12 3:47 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 07:46:09PM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote:
> >>--- a/configure
> >>+++ b/configure
> >>@@ -698,6 +698,12 @@ void foo(void){ __asm__ volatile($code); }
> >>
> >>+check_insn(){
> >>+ log check_insn "$@"
> >>+ check_inline_asm ${1}_inline "\"$2\""
> >>+ echo "$2" | check_as && enable ${1}_external || disable ${1}_external
> >>+}
> >
> >I already objected to this name on IRC. What is "insn" supposed to be
> >except a random, non-duplicate four-character string like "xkcd"?
>
> It is the common, widely used, short form for instruction. cf. gcc
> and binutils manual pages and online docs.
Is it really better than "check_asm" or "check_all_asm"?
Diego
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
