On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 06:02:58AM +0000, Loren Merritt wrote: > On Wed, 8 Aug 2012, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: > > Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> writes: > > > >> libavcodec/x86/Makefile | 6 +++--- > >> libavcodec/x86/{dsputil_yasm.asm => dsputil.asm} | 0 > >> .../x86/{dsputilenc_yasm.asm => dsputilenc.asm} | 0 > >> libavcodec/x86/{vc1dsp_yasm.asm => vc1dsp.asm} | 0 > >> 4 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >> rename libavcodec/x86/{dsputil_yasm.asm => dsputil.asm} (100%) > >> rename libavcodec/x86/{dsputilenc_yasm.asm => dsputilenc.asm} (100%) > >> rename libavcodec/x86/{vc1dsp_yasm.asm => vc1dsp.asm} (100%) > > > > Makes sense. _yasm doesn't convey any information not already given by > > the .asm suffix, given that all the x86 .asm files use yasm syntax. > > Same for _mmx.
Yes, that could/should be changed as well. > Do we have a standard for what to do when we have both a dsputil.c and a > dsputil.asm, where the .o's would collide if we gave both their natural > basename? Right now dropping some of the "_mmx" suffixes would cause name collisions. So really those files should get different names altogether IMO. Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
