On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Søren Sandmann <[email protected]> wrote: > Matt Turner <[email protected]> writes: > >> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Søren Sandmann <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Matt Turner <[email protected]> writes: >>> >>>>> Are there any interesting chips without MMX extensions? Pentium MMX >>>>> definitely is not interesting. If there aren't, I'd rather just get rid >>>>> of the ifdefs and unconditionally require MMX-ext to be present. >>>> >>>> Not really, but it doesn't seem to be much code at all to support >>>> MMX/nonEXT. Either way is okay with me. >>> >>> Then let's delete it. I prefer not having code around that nobody will >>> actually run. >> >> Ack. Want me to resend the patches, or just make the changes before I commit? > > The changes to autoconf.ac are extensive enough that I think it makes > sense to resend the patches.
If we don't care about supporting original MMX, then I think that patch is dead, since pixman-cpu.c already checks for MMX_EXTENSIONS. I'll resend the other two, now simpler, patches. _______________________________________________ Pixman mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman
