On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 08:50:17AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 08/08/2012 02:42 AM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > ---
> > 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%)
>
> Currently asm is always yasm/nasm so possibly we could drop them, Loren
> pointed that we might end up generating objects with the same name so we
> might avoid that by flattening
>
> .asm -> .asm.o
> .c -> .c.o
>
> and so on, not sure if it is worthy.
If at all, the rule should be amended for the .asm files. It would be
very weird to not compile .c files into .o files anymore.
Now it's true that some other names in that directory could also be
improved and I may even get to it eventually, but can we please get
this in as a first step and work our way up from there? Discussing
what to do with the _mmx files should not delay renaming _yasm files.
Diego
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
