Quoting Matt Turner (2019-01-22 00:49:39) > 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.
Ok, that seems like a reasonable means to distinguish these helpers from possible future ones; as width is only likely to go up, and an incompatible ia will then not include the sse2/avx2 inlines. -Chris _______________________________________________ Pixman mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman
