On 28/08/13 10:25, Diego Biurrun wrote: > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 10:24:37AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: >> On 28/08/13 10:00, Diego Biurrun wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:47:35AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: >>>> On 28/08/13 00:12, Diego Biurrun wrote: >>>>> The i686 feature really is a CPU feature and should be handled as such. >>>>> The cpunop dependency on i686 should be expressed with a standard _deps >>>>> declaration instead of a manual test. >>>> >>>> What i686 does exactly? >>> >>> It's supposed to cover the changes from the i586 to i686 x86 architecture, >>> which covers cmov, long nops, and probably more that I forget. >> >> x86 != x86_64 >> >> I wouldn't mix those. > > Yes, sure, but what's your point here? That x86_64 does not imply i686? > I doubt there will ever be an x86_64 CPU w/o cmov and friends; it would > not be backwards-compatible..
>From experience those assumption are quite short lived =) Any x86 expert willing to chip in? lu _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
