On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 12:27 AM Chris Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Quoting Raghuveer Devulapalli (2019-01-17 00:59:59) > > From: raghuveer devulapalli <[email protected]> > > > > These helper function will be reused in pixman-avx2.c implementations in > > the future. > > Are we ever going to run into a naming conflict in the future? Is it > worth prefixing all the inlines with sse2_? Probably makes sense so that > we can see the instruction set used when mixing later. > -Chris
The SSE2 intrinsics will actually be compiled into VEX-prefixed (AVX) instructions operating on xmm registers when -mavx2 is used. I can't think of a reason the lack of a prefix would cause any confusion for the ones that already have "128" in the name. For unpack_565_to_8888, etc, maybe it would be best to add a _128 suffix. We have functions (e.g., pack_565_2x128_128) that look like that already. _______________________________________________ Pixman mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman
