On 2012-08-01 15:24:37 +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote: > 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.
please do Janne _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list libav-devel@libav.org https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
