On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 02:46:36PM +0200, Janne Grunau wrote: > On 2012-08-01 01:33:47 +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 12:00:58AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote: > > > "Ronald S. Bultje" <rsbul...@gmail.com> writes: > > > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Diego Biurrun <di...@biurrun.de> wrote: > > > > [..] > > > > > > > > The most important thing is missing: why? > > > > > > mmxext is a somewhat more official name. > > > > Yes, see my introductory email for the series. I had to unify in one > > direction or the other, so I picked the one that appeared more > > sensible, i.e. the more official names. > > That's all well but it is still missing from the commit message. That's > how I uderstood Ronald comment. Please amend the commit.
How about: x86: build: replace mmx2 by mmxext Refactoring mmx2/mmxext YASM code with cpuflags will force renames. So switching to a consistent naming scheme beforehand in sensible. The name "mmxext" is more official and widespread and also the name of the CPU flag, as reported e.g. by the Linux kernel. I'd add the paragraph to all the other rename commits as well. Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list libav-devel@libav.org https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
