On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 10:27:00AM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 06:14:36PM -0400, Justin Ruggles wrote:
> > On 10/03/2013 06:13 PM, Justin Ruggles wrote:
> > >On 10/01/2013 01:44 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > >>--- a/libavcodec/x86/fdct.c
> > >>+++ b/libavcodec/x86/fdct.c
> > >>@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@
> > >>
> > >>-#if HAVE_INLINE_ASM
> > >>+#if HAVE_MMX_INLINE
> > >>
> > >>@@ -556,6 +556,10 @@ void ff_fdct_mmx(int16_t *block)
> > >>
> > >>+#endif /* HAVE_MMX_INLINE */
> > >>+
> > >>+#if HAVE_MMXEXT_INLINE
> > >>+
> > >> void ff_fdct_mmxext(int16_t *block)
> > >> {
> > >>@@ -574,6 +578,10 @@ void ff_fdct_mmxext(int16_t *block)
> > >>
> > >>+#endif /* HAVE_MMXEXT_INLINE */
> > >>+
> > >>+#if HAVE_SSE2_INLINE
> > >>+
> > >> void ff_fdct_sse2(int16_t *block)
> > >> {
> > >>@@ -583,4 +591,4 @@ void ff_fdct_sse2(int16_t *block)
> > >>
> > >>-#endif /* HAVE_INLINE_ASM */
> > >>+#endif /* HAVE_SSE2_INLINE */
> > >
> > >Please check where these functions are used. I think those conditions
> > >may need to also be changed to match.
> >
> > Oh, nevermind. Didn't see the next patch. Please squash patches 3/8 and 4/8.
>
> I don't think they should be squashed, but you are right, they should be
> reordered.
Is this patch OK now that it's requirement has been pushed?
Diego
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
