On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 07:20:40AM -0700, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 2:44 AM, Diego Biurrun <di...@biurrun.de> wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 06:19:38PM -0700, Ronald S. Bultje wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Loren Merritt <lor...@u.washington.edu> > >> wrote: > >> > On Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Diego Biurrun wrote: > >> >> On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 03:11:50PM -0400, Justin Ruggles wrote: > >> >>> On 07/31/2012 06:17 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote: > >> >>>> --- > >> >>>> 30 files changed, 215 insertions(+), 211 deletions(-) > >> >>> > >> >>> Looks ok, but probably should get other opinions on this as well. I > >> >>> know > >> >>> Ronald was trying to keep x86inc.asm sychronized with x264, and trying > >> >>> to do so after this change would likely require similar extensive > >> >>> cpuflag modifications in x264. > >> >> > >> >> I volunteer to patch x264 if such a change would be accepted on their > >> >> side. > >> > > >> > Rejected. I like "mmx2" better. > >> > However, I wouldn't be opposed to dropping mmx1 entirely and using > >> > the name "mmx" to refer to mmx2. (x264 doesn't actually support mmx1 > >> > anyway; we use mmx2 inline asm that's actually inlined in places where > >> > runtime cpu detection is impossible.) But that wouldn't help > >> > synchronization if libav doesn't do so. > >> > >> Right - from my PoV, keeping us in sync with x264 is more important > >> that having a slightly more accurate cpuflag for something that's > >> never exposed to end users in any way. > > > > It is exposed through configure. > > > >> Diego, have ideas on how to fix this, > > > > Yes, why don't you convince Loren that mmxext is the more sensible name? > > > >> or can you live with changing everything to MMX2 instead? > > > > I believe mmxext is the better name and everybody except Loren seems > > to agree. There are very few uses of mmx2/mmxext in x86inc.asm and > > they are unlikely to ever conflict with future changes to this file. > > Besides, we only sync a few times per year. > > > > So I'm unconvinced that using mmx2 would be a net benefit. I still > > hope that Loren can change his mind, as I said, I volunteer to do > > all the work. > > x86inc.asm is a x264 file that we sync, I'd like to keep it that way, > especially given that I'm the guy who historically had to deal with > the outfalls every time a sync doesn't work right (remember INIT_MMX > not backing up XMM regs anymore on Win64? Remember the register > reordering on Win64 recently?).
Look at where in x86inc.asm the string mmx2/mmxext appears. Merge conflicts are very unlikely and trivial to fix. > Plus, I didn't say it was a good idea, I said I could live with it if > others want it. Right now, it seems others (i.e. Loren) don't. So it's a stalemate? Diego _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list libav-devel@libav.org https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
